OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 291 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, March 19, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 19, 2024 DEBATES No. 291 No. 291 N o 291 Volume 151 291 19 03 2024 2024/03/19 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

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1000) [ English ] Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

The Deputy Speaker :

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 38(3.3) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, a case report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[ English ] Auditor General of Canada

The Deputy Speaker :

It is also my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 7(3) of the Auditor General Act, the spring 2024 reports of the Auditor General of Canada. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

[ English ] International Trade

Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the enhanced transparency requirements set out in the amended policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament, I am pleased to present to the House of Commons the Government of Canada's objectives for negotiations for a Canada-Ecuador free trade agreement. The Government of Canada intends to commence negotiations with Ecuador as soon as practicable, but in accordance with the policy, the commencement of the negotiations will take place no later than 30 days from today.

Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, 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, the treaty entitled “Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora”, adopted at Panama City from November 14 to 25, 2022, and “Amendments to Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora”, notified on November 16, 2020; March 24, 2021; March 15, 2022; March 24, 2022; October 13, 2022; November 3, 2022; November 25, 2022; February 3, 2023; and February 20, 2023.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, concerning Bill C-319 ,

an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding the amount of the full pension, which I and all the members of my political party, the Bloc Québécois, are advocating for. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House without amendment. I sincerely thank the committee for its work and for allowing me to present the report this morning.

(1005) Official Languages

Mr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Briefing by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on her Mandate and Priorities”. I thank the committee for this short report, which I am very proud to present today.

[ English ] Motor Vehicle Transport Act

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

Bill C-385. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-385,

an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce my private member's bill,

an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. This bill aims to harmonize Canadian logging device rules with our southern neighbours. It proposes a 240-kilometre radius ELD exemption from the start and end points of a journey transporting livestock or insects, such as honeybees. This common-sense Conservative bill would give agriculture transporters the flexibility they need to safeguard the welfare of livestock if they are faced with unforeseen circumstances while loading or unloading, as well as during their journey, that may cause drivers to go over their ELD allotted hours.

I would like to thank the constituent stakeholders whom I met with and worked with together to bring this bill forward. I also thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for its work in recommending the provisions of this bill in its 16th report. Conservatives will always support Canadian agriculture producers to safeguard animal welfare and bring home the best-quality food in the world. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Medical Assistance in Dying

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to present a petition signed by more than 16,460 Canadians from every province and two territories, including many Yukoners. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Justice to bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Code to set out a specific framework for an advance request for MAID. This would be for individuals who have received a diagnosis of a capacity-diminishing, grievous and irremediable medical condition and who would wish an assisted death when they reach an advanced state of decline, their suffering becomes intolerable and diminished capacity prevents them from giving contemporaneous consent.

Rail Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition for the people of Lillooet. In 2002, train service to the town of Lillooet was cancelled, resulting in an 82% decline in tourism. Residents in my riding are calling on the federal government to re-establish rail service to the village of Lillooet for economic and medical needs.

Needle Exchange Program

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of correctional officers who are calling on the Government of Canada to stop their failed experiment, noted as the prison needle exchange, at prisons in my riding. It is not going to result in any better health outcomes. That has been stated by the professionals. Correctional officers want it cancelled now.

Lets'emot Regional Recreation and Aquatic Centre

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to raise is on behalf of residents in the eastern Fraser Valley, regarding the Lets'emot Regional Recreation and Aquatic Centre. Residents of the District of Kent, Harrison Hot Springs and Seabird Island, Cheam, Stó:lo, Sts'ailes, Sq'éwlets, Skawahlook, Popkum and Peters First Nations, as well as Fraser Valley Regional District electoral areas C and D, want a regional aquatic centre. They just want the same thing that people have in larger communities: a pool.

Transport Drivers

Mr. George Chahal (Calgary Skyview, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians calling on the government to address the challenges transport drivers in Canada face. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to make laws and regulations that protect these drivers.

This protection includes a transport driver bill of rights; transparent industry contracts; the right for drivers to see what they will get paid; a must-have minimum rate of pay per kilometre for drivers and owner-operators; must-have paid layover, downtime and cancellation fees; access to bathrooms where drivers deliver their goods; a cap on brokerage fees; and mandated rest stations with washrooms across the country for the safety and well-being of drivers. They also call on the government to work with provinces and territories to twin the Trans-Canada Highway.

Transport drivers work hard to bring us what we need every day. They deserve to be treated fairly, with good pay and safe working conditions. The petition recognizes the invaluable service provided by our transport drivers and seeks to ensure they get the rights and protections they deserve.

(1010) Russian Federation

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition this morning, signed by over 600 Canadians from across Canada. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to list Russia as a state supporter of terrorism. This measure would allow Canadians to take the Russian Federation to court to sue for damages. It would also send a message that Russia needs to be considered a pariah on the world stage because of its illegal invasion of Ukraine. I would also like to add that this measure would be of no cost to taxpayers. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the petition here today.

Spanish Language Day

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to present a petition to this respected House on behalf of the members of Spanish-speaking communities in Canada, including those in my riding of Davenport. Canada is proud to be home to over 1.2 million Spanish-speaking individuals, representing a huge cultural and ethnic diversity. For those of Hispanic and Latin American descent who have chosen Canada as a new home, the Spanish language holds profound significance, serving as a vital link to their heritage, identity and traditions.

The petition has gathered thousands of signatures and has the support of Spanish-speaking communities right across our great country, asking that Canada proclaim April 23 as Spanish language day at the federal level. It is a date chosen in memory of the great writer of Spanish letters, Miguel de Cervantes. This designation would serve as a symbolic gesture of solidarity and recognition, further empowering the Spanish-speaking community to thrive and contribute to the multicultural fabric of Canadian society.

First Responders Tax Credit

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding. They are calling on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 , which would amend the Income Tax Act to increase tax credits for volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer services.

Air Service to India

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present yet another petition in regard to Canada's airline service between Canada and India. As members know, our Indo-Canadian community has grown significantly over the last decade. It is arguably the fastest-growing community in Canada today. At the end of the day, with that growth and the demand for international flights even from individuals of non-Indo-Canadian heritage, it is believed that having more direct flights from Canada to India would be a positive thing. From a personal perspective, they are really emphasizing that flights from the city of Winnipeg to New Delhi or Amritsar would be a nice thing to see.

Hong Kong

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have just one petition today. It is deeply troubling to see the passage of

article 23 in Hong Kong. This is another devastating attack on the people of Hong Kong. It creates a provision that would allow sentences of up to 14 years of imprisonment if an individual fails to disclose that another person indicates an intention to commit treason. This builds on the national security law of 2020, but it is another devastating action that requires the condemnation of the government. The government should also call for the release of Jimmy Lai.

I am presenting a petition in relation to the situation in Hong Kong that calls on the Government of Canada to recognize the politicization of the judiciary in Hong Kong. In doing so, it could create a mechanism by which Hong Kong people with pro-democracy movement-related convictions could explain such convictions. Therefore, they would not be deemed inadmissible to come to Canada under the criminality provisions of the Immigration Act.

(1015) 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 Deputy Speaker :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply

[ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

moved: Motion

That, given that 70% of provinces and 70% of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax hike on April 1, the House call on the NDP-Liberal coalition to immediately cancel this hike.

He said: Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost. While the Prime Minister wants to drive up the cost of literally everything, common-sense Conservatives are focused on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. Today, we are going to focus on that first piece of it because, on April 1, the Prime Minister has a cruel April Fool's Day joke planned for Canadians. As if prices were not high enough already, the out-of-touch Prime Minister is going to raise the carbon tax by a staggering 23% in just a couple of weeks.

I know that I speak on behalf of all my Conservative colleagues when I say that we sympathize with the struggles hard-working Canadians are going through. We see it in our ridings. I have been in grocery stores where well-dressed people who look like they have jobs and have means go through the meat aisle, pick up a package of beef, stare agonizingly at it, and then put it back when they realize they just cannot afford it. That is what life is like after eight years of this Liberal government. On April 1, those prices are going to go up, yet again.

Common-sense Conservatives are fighting all week to spike the hike and to convince the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition partners to, at the very least, not raise it any more. The first thing we can do to help Canadians is to hold the line on this punitive tax and to not make it any worse. I will deal with some myth-busting of the carbon tax. Do members remember when the Prime Minister promised that the carbon tax would do a few things?

First of all, he said that it would be revenue-neutral, that it would help Canada reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and that Canadians would be better off with it because of a rebate scheme he had developed. At this point, I will remind the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry . Those are the three pillars that the Prime Minister built his carbon tax on: revenue-neutral, reduce emissions and help Canada reach its targets, and he would give out more than he would take in from Canadians. Let us bust all three of those myths.

First of all, it is not revenue-neutral. The government keeps a sizable percentage of the carbon tax. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, estimates that the carbon tax alone costs small business $2.5 billion, which is $2.5 billion sucked right out of the economy, and those costs that those businesses have to pay gets passed on to consumers. The government keeps far more of what it collects than it gives out with the carbon tax. That myth is completely busted. That pillar has been completely demolished.

On emissions reductions, let us take a look at what experts say about the Liberal government's plan. It has not helped it hit a single emissions target. The Climate Change Performance Index ranks Canada 62 out of 67 spots. Canada has actually fallen several spots on that ranking under the Liberal government, after eight years of the Prime Minister . Canada now ranks behind countries like Kazakhstan, Algeria and Belarus. Those countries are doing better than Canada under this government.

The environment commissioner said that this government was stacking failures on top of failures; that is the environment commissioner the Prime Minister appointed. His own environment watchdog has concluded that this government is stacking failure after failure. It is clearly not an environment plan; it is a tax plan. Let us take a look at the impact it has on families, which is the third myth that somehow Canadians would be better off if they paid this tax. That has been completely shattered. We know that it adds to the cost of fuel, heating and groceries. Let us take a look at some specifics.

(1020) Starting April 1, the carbon tax will add 17¢ to every litre of gasoline and 21¢ to every litre of diesel. We are looking at staggering costs that Canadians just cannot afford. The food experts, the people who monitor the grocery industry and the price of groceries in the aisles, are saying that Canadians are going to have to pay an extra $700 in grocery prices this year, before the carbon tax hike is even factored in. If we factor in all of the secondary costs, we can see the ridiculous rebate ruse that the Liberals are trying to sell Canadians.

Somehow, magically, if people pay these higher carbon tax costs, the government will take the money, will swoosh it around in Ottawa, and then will spit it back out in various parts at various times, and somehow, Canadians will be better off. The only problem is that once one takes a look at that scheme, it falls apart almost instantly. What the Liberals did was something very tricky. It was very clever, but very tricky.

They designed the carbon tax rebate to only capture the direct costs, which is only what someone sees as the carbon tax on a bill, whether it is filling up one's car with gas or paying one's home heating bill. One will only see that line item cost. That is the only thing that the rebate scheme factors in. However, what it does not factor in is how all those costs in the economy get passed on to consumers. We pay that higher carbon tax every time we buy something that had to be grown or manufactured, that had to be transported, that had to be cooled or refrigerated or that had to be warmed or heated.

Any time a retailer has to pay the carbon tax on their heating bills or on their utility bills, all of that gets cascaded on, and consumers and Canadians pay for that. The rebate scheme captures absolutely none of that, but do not take my word for it. I know many Canadians might say that the Liberals have a tale to tell and that the Conservatives have their perspectives. Let us look at what independent experts say about this part of the carbon tax plan. The Prime Minister 's own budget watchdog, the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer, did this analysis and went through all of the numbers.

He broke Canadian families into various groups that he calls quintiles. Basically, he took all Canadian wage earners and divided them up into different groups based on their income levels. This is based on income earners who are the middle group; these are middle-class Canadians who are average, middle-income earners. In Alberta, they would be $1,400 worse off, and in Saskatchewan, they would be $929 worse off once the carbon tax is fully implemented. In Manitoba, they would be $1,000 worse off. In Ontario, they would be $1,200 worse off. Nova Scotians would be $1,100 worse off.

Prince Edward Islanders would be another $1,100 worse off. For the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, they would $680 worse off, even after the rebate scheme. We are talking about average middle-class Canadians. If we look at one income bracket just below that group, they are still worse off too. They are not better off. These families are still paying more in the rebate, but that middle group is significant. That is almost $100 a month that Canadian families just simply cannot afford. They cannot afford groceries, cannot afford to keep the heat on and cannot afford to pay higher costs through the carbon tax.

Again, these are the independent analyses of the Prime Minister 's own budget watchdog. The final point I will make is the role the carbon tax plays in inflation. The government tries to say that the carbon tax is not a significant driver of inflation. Let us look at what the Bank of Canada governor himself said. I am just going to quote very briefly from committee evidence, and then I will yield the floor. Mr. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, told the committee that eliminating the carbon tax would drop inflation by 0.6 percentage points.

My colleague from Northumberland asked him to clarify because 0.6% might not sound like a lot. However, when inflation is at 3.8%, with the target of 2%, and if the Bank of Canada can start cutting interest rates once inflation gets closer to the target, that means 0.6% is about a third of the 1.8% that Canada has to eliminate in inflation to get back down to the target so that interest rates can come down. In other words, the carbon tax is responsible for about a third of the extra inflation that is plaguing Canadians and is forcing the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates high.

If the government eliminated the carbon tax, it would be one-third of the way to getting inflation back down to the target, which means interest rates and prices can come down.

(1025) This week, Conservatives are going to stand with the 70% of Canadians who oppose this carbon tax hike and the 70% of premiers who oppose the carbon tax hike. We are going to fight to spike the hike so we can axe the tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, we saw the former leader of the Conservative Party twist, bend and jump all over the place to try to justify statistics so that Conservatives can continue their spin of misinformation. Let us be very clear. There is a carbon tax, and there is a carbon rebate. It is as simple as that. Eighty per cent plus of people will receive more in the rebate than they will pay in the tax. No matter how many somersaults or twisting of the facts the former leader of the Conservative Party does, that is the reality.

Why do Conservative Party members not go around Canada saying they are going to be cutting the carbon rebate? They know full well that the disposal income for 80%-plus of people is going to go down under the Conservative plan.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the hon. member is the one who has to twist, turn and pretzel. We have to hold up the rebate in just the right light, maybe on the second full moon of the month, and if we have it at the right angle, we might find where someone is better off. This is not my opinion. This is from the independent budget watchdog. I can tell all my colleagues participating in the debate today that the Liberals are going to do this all day.

They are going to start talking about only the direct costs of the carbon tax, but we know all the experts' analyses have concluded when we factor in all the costs, that retailers have to raise their prices, that shippers have to raise their prices, that producers have to raise their prices and that companies have to pay out lower wages because they are paying a higher share of the carbon tax. When that is all factored in, Canadians are worse off. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that 60% of Canadians pay far more than they get back.

The fifth quintile, the fourth quintile and the third quintile of middle income-earning groups are hundreds of dollars worse off, even after the rebate program is factored in.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion today is very short, clear and concise. They are relying on numbers, and I imagine that the Conservative Party is very thorough and does not pull numbers out of a hat. They claim that 70% of Canadians oppose the 23% tax hike that will take effect on April 1. However, if we look at the survey, we see that those numbers apply to the government's decision to exempt heating oil from the carbon pricing legislation, not to the legislation itself. Did the Conservative Party forget to specify that in its motion?

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all. We heard the pleas from Canadians who are suffering because of this punitive tax. [ English ] We know Canadians are opposed to the carbon tax, especially the hike in the carbon tax, and it is not just public polling that shows that. Seventy per cent of premiers have urged the government to, at the very least, not hike the tax that is coming on April 1. The Prime Minister is very divisive. He likes to divide groups of Canadians against each other.

He likes to divide regions against each other and provinces against each other, but he is actually achieving something, which is a little rare in Canadian politics. He is creating consensus and unity among premiers from various regions, from west to east, Liberal or Conservative. He is uniting them in opposition against his terrible tax plan. The carbon tax hike is going to make everything more expensive. Canadians are going to be worse off. They are going to have to pay more, and they are going to lose more money at the end of the month. The rebate program does not cover it. Those are the facts.

The least the Liberal government could do in a cost of living crisis, as young people are moving back home, as people are moving into tent cities, choosing between heating and eating, is to spike the hike so that prices do not rise any further.

(1030) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the one area where I agree with the Conservatives is that the carbon tax has not brought down emissions, and it has not brought down emissions because the Liberals believe that the tar sands companies would do the right thing. We had Pathways Alliance and the net-zero plan. We have seen carbon emission decreases across the board, except in big oil where it increases. As for the carbon tax, Suncor, which was one of the companies that made $78 billion in profits last year, pays one-fourteenth of the carbon tax that “Joe who fills up his gas tank” has to pay.

We gave these companies free money, and we continue to give them free money. They are burning our planet and have no intention of doing the right thing. The Liberals were suckers for believing that Rich Kruger, Suncor, Imperial and the rest of the tar sands companies actually cared about burning the planet. I am sorry. I will retract that because we know the Conservatives do not care about burning the planet either.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Mr. Speaker, my comrade over there from the politburo actually wants to make my speech illegal. If that member's bill passed and I gave the speech I just gave outside of this chamber, I could go to jail, because that is the mentality of the NDP. Its members want to control speech, stifle debate and impose their views. However, he did touch on what happens in other countries. Remember, under the government's environment plan, when our European allies came calling asking for Canada's clean LNG to get off Russian oil, that member and his party stood with the Liberal government and said no. It was shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has done a great job in the last little while of uniting the country. There is a great Canadian tax revolt against him and the constant never-ending tax increases that are coming. After eight years, Canadians know they have had enough. They cannot afford the cost of the Prime Minister any longer. He is uniting the country against him and the constant tax increases Canadians are facing.

Seventy per cent of Canadians are opposed to the latest spike in the carbon tax, which is a cruel April Fool's Day joke coming on April 1 that is going to see a 23% increase in the carbon tax at a time when millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. The punishment and the never-ending tax increases under the Prime Minister , which are fully propped up by the NDP every step of the way, are all part of the plan to quadruple the carbon tax in the coming years. Seventy per cent of Canadians and seven premiers from every part of this country are united against this latest tax hike.

It has become so bad that the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has called out the Prime Minister and demanded a stop to this latest increase. Even provincial Liberal parties in New Brunswick and Kathleen Wynne's party in Ontario are against this. The Ontario Liberal Party is now so tired of the Prime Minister. He is so toxic now and so unpopular that he is uniting the country against him, including the Ontario Liberal Party, which is now coming out and not just saying it wants to spike the hike but even saying it is going to axe the tax entirely.

When the party of Kathleen Wynne will not even support the carbon tax anymore, one knows Liberals are on the wrong track. The great Canadian tax revolt is well under way. The numbers speak for themselves. I am going to talk about a few numbers of fact about the struggle Canadians are going through. Seven hundred dollars is how much more a family of four in Canada is going to pay on their grocery bill in 2024. That does not even factor the increase of the carbon into it. This latest increase, a 23% hike, is going to drive up the cost of food, heating and filling one's car even more. It is getting worse.

Sadly, we have seen food bank reports over and over again these past few years talking about a surge in the number of visits in this country. The Liberals and the NDP say all the time that they have a plan and that their plan is working and helping. It is not. A recent food charity report said that food banks in this country are bracing after record usage in 2023. They are bracing for one million more visits by Canadians to food banks this year. This is insanity.

The Prime Minister and the NDP are absolutely tone deaf to keep doubling down, or quadrupling down, frankly, on the carbon tax and think this is not going to get even worse. It has become so bad for charities that 36% of charities last year had to turn people away because they were running out of resources. The Liberals and the NDP, this costly coalition, are about the only ones left in this country, and there are the very few, who are not getting with the program. Canadians are tired of the tax hikes. They cannot afford 61¢ a litre on the price of gas in the coming years. It is driving up the cost of living.

It is driving up the cost of groceries and the cost of doing business and is taking business away from this country. Even with the abundance of great agricultural land in this country, we are now seeing companies and grocery stores importing food from around the world rather than having it grown here close to home when Liberals are nailing greenhouses with the carbon tax and farmers with an astronomical amount in carbon tax. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars for one grain-drying operation in my riding, and they're on their way to quadrupling it. Enough is enough.

We know the Liberal math and their promises never add up. That is why the budget just does not balance itself. It is because their math never makes sense.

(1035) It makes sense to the average Canadian, who knows that it is driving up the cost of their household budget. It is driving up their mortgage now. It is driving up groceries. It is driving up heating. It is driving up having a car and taking one's kids to hockey or to go out and about like Canadians do. The Liberals promised $50 a tonne. That is as far as they were going to go with the carbon tax. They broke that promise and they tripled that to about $170 a tonne, after promising it would not go above $50. They promised rebates for businesses.

For all of the carbon tax that small businesses and businesses pay in this country, they give them zero rebates, let alone the rebates they give to households, which we know, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer says, do not cover the carbon tax costs that families pay. Businesses get nothing. Liberals broke their promise, and now they are trying to get us to believe in their talking points and their little chart, saying that Canadians are better off with the rebates they get. It is nonsense. Nobody believes it and neither does the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In his report, the facts are clear.

The average family of four in a Canadian province that is projected to get a certain amount back on the rebate are out hundreds of dollars, regardless of which province they live in. If one is in Ontario, one is out, on average, in 2024 and 2025, $627. For Alberta families, it's $911, and it's $502 in Manitoba. The list goes on and on. The more they increase this carbon tax, the bigger the difference, debt and struggle Canadian families are going to face. One of the important things is to read the fine print when it comes to these Liberals and their NDP coalition partners. They never just give a straight answer.

Watch question period any day. They will never give a straight answer. The carbon tax in the coming years is going to quadruple. Here is how. They do not just do it with one carbon tax. They have two carbon taxes. There is the first carbon tax, which is going to total 37¢ a litre on the price of gas in the coming years. The rebates, as I have just confirmed, do not even cover that. They now have a second carbon tax coming in every part of the country. They “word salad” these things. They changed the name, a “clean fuel standard”. It is a second carbon tax with zero rebates for anybody.

That is going to be 17¢ a litre on the price of gas in the coming years. If that is not bad enough, what really triggers and infuriates Canadians is the fact that the Liberals and the NDP do not have only one carbon tax. They have a second carbon tax and then they tax the tax. They put the GST and HST on carbon tax one and carbon tax two, for a total of 61¢ a litre. They are out of touch. Here is the thing that, I think, puts the cherry on top of just how out of touch and aloof, after eight years of the Prime Minister , the Liberals and the NDP are.

Over the last year, Canadians are united, as I mentioned, more than ever before against the carbon tax and against this latest April 1 increase. The PMO put out talking points last week. The title is “Is the carbon tax suffering from a failure to communicate?” I am sorry. That was not the PMO. It was the CBC that wrote that article. I am sorry. I think it was probably provided by the PMO to the CBC to write, where they try to defend. Again, the entire argument, for the last year, from the Liberals is that it is just a communication problem, that they are just not explaining themselves enough.

Canadians know themselves. They cannot afford the Prime Minister . They cannot afford this carbon tax. They cannot afford a 23% increase on it on April 1, on its way to quadrupling in the coming years. If this was a communication problem, it would have been solved, because the Prime Minister loves photo ops. He loves all of these news conferences and these flashy word salads. In the last year, as a million more food bank visits are expected this year, more people than ever before are using food banks. There are mortgage defaults. The economic news gets worse.

The only thing the Prime Minister has done in the last couple of months is rename the carbon tax. That is how out of touch Liberals are. This carbon tax and the cruel, latest increase, the never-ending increases, are not a communication problem. They are a tax problem. Canadians have finally realized. They have had enough. It is time.

(1040) Spike the hike. Axe the tax, and finally give Canadians some relief.

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the argument that the carbon tax would be inflationary. The problem is that the experts do not seem to think that. For example, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in September, said that the carbon tax only contributed about 0.15 percentage points to inflation. A Policy Options review in 2023 estimated that carbon taxes increased consumer prices between 2018 to 2023 by 0.6%. Stats Canada, in a B.C. study, figured that only about 0.33% of the increased cost of food was attributable to the carbon tax. I am not sure where the Conservatives are getting their statistics from, but I would like to hear some of their statistics.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, Canadians agree with the common-sense Conservative consensus that is building across the country. They know it is common sense. We cannot tax the farmer who grows the food, tax the trucker who ships the food and then tax the stores that sell the food. When they all get no rebate, they pass that cost onto the consumer. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has said the carbon tax is adding to inflation. Nobody believes this when the rebates do not even cover the first carbon tax, and it is on its way up to 61¢ a litre. We cannot add that cost to farmers, to truckers and to businesses.

Liberals even tax the big bad polluting snowplows, the private and public snowplows. They are putting a carbon tax on clearing snow in this country. They are carbon taxing everything and it is driving costs up. We cannot go and add all these costs and taxes on and just expect it to evaporate. It is driving up inflation. It is driving up the cost of doing business and the cost of living. It is just common sense.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, for us, today really feels like Groundhog Day. It seems like every time there is a Conservative opposition day, it is always about the carbon tax. There are plenty of momentous issues we could be talking about this morning, but we are still talking about the carbon tax. It is so ridiculous. My Conservative friends and colleagues often talk about the government's inflationary spending. According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2022, the government gave the oil industry $50 billion in direct and indirect spending.

Keep in mind that in 2022, the five biggest oil companies made a combined $200 billion in profits. This is in addition to the fact that the Liberal budget plans to spend $80 billion on tax credits for oil companies by 2035. That is not counting the $34 billion that Trans Mountain is going to cost. Does my colleague think that all this spending is inflationary spending, yes or no?

(1045) [ English ]

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is like the weather vane of Canadian politics. We just never know where it is going to take its stand. That member is the one who stood up in the House and said, when talking about the carbon tax, that he wanted to radically increase the carbon tax. He loves the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Bloc Québécois is hopping right on board. They are out of touch and aloof, and we just cannot figure them out anymore, just like the member from the Bloc Québécois. For that second carbon tax, which is 17¢ a litre added to the price of gas, they are sending that to Ottawa.

They are putting a second carbon tax on the province of Quebec and sending all of that money to Ottawa. What has the Bloc Québécois become? If he is saying there are better things to talk about, I am thinking that with April 1 coming and the need to spike the hike, where we have 70% of Canadians, seven premiers and people frustrated with these never-ending tax increases, he needs to go back to his riding and talk to some real people. They will tell him they are sick of the tax increases in the province of Quebec as well.

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I like the member, but of course he does not remember the dismal decade, which was the Harper decade, where the Conservatives made it extremely difficult for people to even live. Seniors were forced to work for years before they got their pensions. Services were axed. I can see the Conservatives reacting because they know how deplorable their record was. They were absolutely obscene. There was $30 billion a year given to overseas tax havens. Money was poured into oil and gas CEOs. They ravaged this country.

One of the things that I think is very interesting is the climate changer performance index that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle mentioned earlier. Let us go back to 2014. In 2014, under the Harper government, climate change deniers, we were the fourth worst in the world in terms of our performance against climate change. We know that costs Canadians thousands of dollars every year. Every Canadian pays the price of climate change. My question is very simple: Why are Conservatives climate change deniers?

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the previous Conservative government, under which we had houses people could afford and food people could afford, and we did not need to have millions of Canadians going to food banks. I am proud of the previous Conservative government, under which there were not tent cities exploding everywhere in this country like they have been in the past few years under the Liberals. For the record, the NDP owns every single bit of that responsibility, because it propped up the Prime Minister , but I cannot wait for the next election, for several reasons, whenever that may be.

Many Canadians are saying, “sooner rather than later, please” because here is the NDP's pitch to help the struggling senior in Burnaby, British Columbia: Put a carbon tax on of 61¢ a litre, drive up the cost of food, drive up the cost of gas, drive up the cost of rent and drive up the cost of losing a home. The NDP, provincially and federally, is complicit.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is pure disinformation and the member knows it. B.C. does not have a federal carbon tax, so he is going to have to withdraw his words.

The Deputy Speaker :

That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, rarely will I challenge my colleague, for whom I have enormous respect, but I think it is not accurate that the member knows he is spreading misinformation. I think he just reads his lines.

The Deputy Speaker :

I do not hear a point of order. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry has the floor.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, I always love to hear the NDP. I appreciate its members' interventions proving they just love the carbon tax. They have no problem quadrupling it. Canadians will decide in the next election. I cannot wait.

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines . I am thankful for the opportunity to once again clarify how having a price on carbon is the most effective way of addressing climate change and curtailing its devastating effects on the health and safety of Canadians. I have had an opportunity to go on television a couple of times with my colleague, the failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle .

He and I have had a couple of debates on this issue, and I am proud to say that Canadians deserve action that addresses the horrific costs associated with climate change. Also, today in the news, inflation numbers are in, and inflation is down around 2.8% from the high of at 8.1% in June 2022. Over the last three months, food and goods inflation have actually been negative. Groceries are going back down to normal. This is a really encouraging trend, and it is worth noting that it is happening in the context of our fighting climate change and lowering our emissions at the exact same time.

In 2023 we saw a record wildfire season here in Canada. More area was burned, more than double the historic record, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians were evacuated from their homes as a result. I remember that when I was kid, we used to talk about global warming, and there were always images of polar bears and the Amazon rainforest. However, climate change is not in some far-off place; it is right here. It was in the skies of Ottawa last summer when we were working here. There were people with asthma who could not come to work. People were not leaving their homes. There were respiratory distress alerts.

In total, the area burned was 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years. The Insurance Bureau of Canada also concluded that the average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could cost more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1 billion a year, which is what they are at right now, to over $5 billion a year, and that must be accompanied by an increase in premium income. Climate change is not free, and pollution should not be free either.

There are very real costs associated with having one's house burn down or having to flee one's home and job due to an evacuation order. We also know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. The Conservatives on the other side might bellow at me and deny the existence of climate change, as they always do, but it does not change the fact. Emissions are on their way down in Canada. We have reversed the disastrous Harper legacy of rising emissions up until 2015.

We have done that by putting a price on carbon pollution. We have reduced our emissions, and that encourages reductions right across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide what changes they are going to make. It also creates incentives for Canadian businesses to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services. However, members do not have to believe me that it is being done right, as we are doing here in Canada.

There is a gentleman, William Nordhaus, who has a Nobel prize in economics that he was awarded in 2018 for his work on carbon pricing and macroeconomics. He said that Canada is getting carbon pricing right, that it is both effective and affordable for consumers and it lowers emissions right across the economy. This is because the bulk of proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system go straight back into the pockets of Canadians.

In provinces where the fuel charge applies, eight out of 10 households continue to get more money back through their quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system. For the fiscal year starting on April 1, a family of four will receive, under the Canada carbon rebate, $1,800 in Alberta, $1,200 in Manitoba, $1,120 in Ontario, $1,504 in Saskatchewan, $760 in New Brunswick, $824 in Nova Scotia, $880 in Prince Edward Island and $1,192 in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I was on one of the TV programs I mentioned earlier with the failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle , I asked the member whether he had cashed his cheque, which would have been around $1,300 as he has a family of more than four in Saskatchewan, and he refused to answer. The Conservatives repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the rebate program is an effective way to combat the affordability crisis and it is an effective way to lower our emissions.

More importantly, for eight out of 10 households, these amounts represent more than they will pay as a result of the federal pricing pollution system. Remember, the federal government does not keep any proceeds from the federal fuel charge. They are all returned to the jurisdiction in which they are collected.

(1050) Carbon pricing works and climate change is real. It does not matter how much the Conservatives yell and repeat their slogans and lines written by their campaign team; we know that there are many ways to make affordability a reality in Canada. That is why we have seen the inflation numbers come down. We have seen groceries become a bit more affordable in the last couple of months. That is really positive news. According to economists, the inflation on food and other goods, like telecommunications, was actually negative over the last couple of months. This is in the context of pricing carbon.

If Conservatives are going to say that pricing carbon leads to inflation, then how have we seen a rising price on pollution over the last three years associated with a decrease in our inflation? We know that there are many ways to make life more affordable, and affordability has been a top concern of the government since we got elected in 2015. Serious governments need to have a plan to fight for affordability, the environment, reducing emissions and to fight climate change at the same time. Conservatives have been talking about food banks a lot lately, which is important. I volunteer at food banks.

I support a lot of poverty reduction and poverty elimination agencies, and I meet with officials from those organizations on a frequent basis. They have a lot of really good recommendations for our government. They have recommendations for a universal basic income and how to expand programs like the Canada child benefit. They have recommendations such as making sure that child care is affordable. Pharmacare is on their agenda. They want to make sure that Canadians can access their vital health care without having to make a decision between paying their bills and paying their medical expenses.

That is why we have been there. None of those food banks, food rescue organizations, poverty elimination experts or economists have pointed to a price on pollution as a cause for unaffordability or inflation, so we are delivering the support where it is most effective, to those who need it most. People who live in rural communities, like many of my constituents in Milton, face unique realities.

The measures we have introduced help to put even more money back into the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside large cities and have more expensive home heating and transportation costs. We have been very clear that we will continue to implement our pollution pricing system while ensuring that we continue to put more money into the pockets of Canadian households.

Most recently, through Bill C-59 , the fall economic statement implementation act, which we voted on last night, we introduced measures to advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It introduces measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's plan to both fight climate change and lower our emissions, as well as to ensure that families can pay their bills.

Making life affordable for Canadians while protecting the environment will always be a priority for our government, and it remains a priority today.

(1055) I would like to talk about two things. The first is about following through on a campaign commitment. The government was elected three times on a commitment to fight climate change and lower our emissions. Three times we campaigned on a promise to price pollution. In the hypocrisy of Conservatives, in their 2021 platform they planned to put a price on carbon with their then leader Erin O'Toole, but their failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle , went back to his 2019 campaign promise of saying that Canada should be allowed to increase its emissions.

He said it again yesterday on television. He has repeatedly said that Canada should be allowed to increase its emissions, which would make climate change worse; it would make sure that Canada is not a leader in fighting climate change on a global scale. Integrity requires us to follow through on our commitments, and all of the Conservatives ran on a commitment to price carbon.

Unfortunately they have taken their jackets off, flipped them inside out, tossed Erin O'Toole to the curb and are back to their 2019 campaign commitment of the failed leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle , to ignore climate change altogether. The second issue I want to address is political maturity. In 2015, emissions were on their way up. We campaigned on a commitment to reverse that trend, lower our emissions and be a leader in fighting climate change around the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, ran on a commitment to do nothing on the environment.

They do absolutely nothing on the environment. Their party's official statement on climate change is that there is no human cause for inflation. It requires us to look in the mirror and ask what our plan is. For two and a half years, Conservatives have said they would like to axe the tax. They have made bumper stickers and hoodies. It is their brand now: Axe the tax. Political maturity requires them to come up with an idea or a plan to replace it with something. If they want to axe the tax, then what are they going to replace it with? I would ask Conservatives what their plan is to tackle climate change.

(1100) Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take to my feet and ask a question in debate today. The member opposite talked about political maturity and doing what one says one would do. Does he realize that he ran on a campaign to never increase the carbon tax past $50 a tonne? That is a commitment he made to the people of Milton. No wonder he is plummeting in the polls after that bush league speech. The member bends over backwards, trying to ask, “Did he take the money?” He asked the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle if he had cashed his carbon tax rebate cheque. That is Canadians' money in the first place.

They earned it. The Liberals are trying to argue about how to best give the money back to Canadians. How about they do not take it in the first place and stop trying to give Canadians back their money. Let them keep it when they make it.

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in the member's statement. However, I will address something that he said. In 2019, that member ran on a commitment, with Erin O'Toole, to price carbon. He went door to door.

An hon. member: That was not in 2019.

Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, it was in 2021. I am sorry. I get confused because, in 2019, none of them even mentioned climate change as the failed leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle , ran on a commitment to ignore climate change. The Conservatives realized that was a failed opportunity, and Erin O'Toole recognized that, if one would like to be the prime minister of this country, they needed to have a plan to lower our emissions and fight climate change. Clearly the member opposite has amnesia, or he has chosen to go back on his commitment to price carbon. I have a question for him.

The amount his family will be receiving in the Canada carbon rebate is $1,504. That addresses affordability challenges for members of his community. It is also an incentive to lower our emissions. I hope that the member will join me in making sure his community is aware of that $1,504—

The Deputy Speaker :

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Victoria.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it does feel as though the Conservatives do not have any plan to address the climate crisis. They cannot even really admit that there is a climate crisis. However, the Liberals have failed to communicate what their silver bullet solution is for carbon pricing. To double the rebate right now for rural Canadians and try to gain back some ground, they will be increasing the carbon price on small businesses. The Liberals already owe small businesses and indigenous groups $3.6 billion. Why would the Liberals not make big oil pay what it owes by implementing an excess profits tax?

We just saw polling that says the majority of Canadians wants an excess profits tax on big oil and gas. Why will the Liberals not do it?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, I always say it is refreshing when I have the opportunity to discuss how we fight climate change with the member for Victoria . Instead of having to listen to Conservatives deny the existence of climate change and deny our leadership opportunity in lowering our emissions and fighting climate change, we get a refreshing opportunity with the New Democrats to discuss how we fight climate change. I agree with the member. The excess profits of the oil and gas industry are absolutely obscene. Not only that, but what they have done with the oil sands is an environmental disaster.

I had the chance to visit Fort McMurray, and we have also heard testimony in the environment committee about the poisoning of the Kearl site through tailings ponds leakages. There needs to be more accountability from the oil and gas sector. It needs to pay for the mess it has made. We need to ensure that accountability and integrity are there throughout every aspect of our economy. Once again, I will say that it is refreshing to talk about how we will fight climate change in the House, not if we will fight climate change, which is always the case with the Conservatives.

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something that was brought up by my colleague here on this side of the House, which was that the Prime Minister said the carbon tax would not be increased past $50 a tonne. I recently read Jody Wilson-Raybould's book, in which she said that she had realized that the Liberals will say whatever they have to say to get elected. It is obvious that this is just another broken promise from them. The member for Milton talked about emitting emissions. I have a very basic question.

Does he believe that families that are heating their homes, putting fuel in their gas tanks to take their kids to hockey or to get to work, or feeding their families, are emitting emissions?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, it is a reality in Canada that we live in a cold country in the winter, but it gets pretty warm in the summer. A lot of our goods come from far away, and that requires a lot of transportation costs. Canadians have a carbon footprint. There is a way we could increase that carbon footprint. We could ignore climate change and say to heck with it, we are just going to let carbon emissions fly and that we do not care about climate change. However, there is an alternative. We could consider a heat pump. We could consider more fuel-efficient vehicles. We could consider more locally grown produce and meat.

These are ways to lower our carbon footprint. We are supporting Canadians through those choices. In Saskatchewan, where my colleague is from, there is a $1,504 rebate.

(1105) Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are again discussing this today, after we have discussed it time and time again, but I think it was telling for the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek when the member for Milton said, which is quite reasonable, that we need to have a plan to fight climate change, and the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek said, no, we do not. That is the Conservative Party plan.

An hon. member: You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that you do not have a plan. You need to be truthful in this place.

Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, she is heckling me now because she is quite upset that I am calling her out. She thinks she can heckle and not be called out on it, but clearly, it is climate denial. She is trying to shout me down at the moment.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have been trying to listen to this dismal debate, but people shouting at each other has lowered the tone even more than it normally would be, so I would ask you to let people say their dismal points so they can go on the record without this kind of bitter batter back and forth.

Mrs. Kelly Block :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to clarify if, in fact, it is a point of order when a member absolutely misleads the House about what another member said during debate.

The Deputy Speaker :

I would caution members not to impugn what other members have said in their speeches to make sure that we treat everyone as honourable members, as we all accept in this chamber. I want to make sure we have a reasonable debate among members of the House.

Mr. Greg McLean :

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member across the way clearly misled the House on something my colleague said. I think it is incumbent upon you as Speaker to have him withdraw a comment that was a direct and absolute intentional misrepresentation of something one of my colleagues on this side of the House said. The member is known for that. You know he is known for that, and it is about time somebody called him on it. I request that you do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Speaker, the member yelled what I said she said. You can check Hansard and go back to the tapes. I am happy to come back if it was not what the member said. It was loud and clear, and it was caught by Hansard. I suggest you go back to check because it was very clear. To allow other members to impugn what I heard seems to be hypocritical for those members. They did not hear it and were not being yelled at. I was sitting next to the hon. member. This is preposterous.

The Deputy Speaker :

This is why we recognize an individual to speak, and there is a question and comment period afterward so people can be clear in their positions on whatever we are talking about. I would caution members not to put words in other people's mouths. It seems to happen an awful lot in the chamber, and it should not happen. I would ask members to be judicious in the words they use. We will go back to listen to the tapes if that is what we need to do to find out who said what when. I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue, but I will caution him. Maybe he could move on to his next point.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Speaker, again the Conservatives are saying the quiet part out loud, which is that they deny the existence of climate change, an existential threat to humanity. They come back time and time again with slogans. I have said before that their only environmental plan is to recycle slogans in this place. They represent ridings across the country, ridings that are in drought, or that have suffered from fires, floods and hurricanes, which have been exacerbated by climate change. What do they do? They heckle, mock, and deny.

They offer no plan for the future and mislead Canadians on what is actually increasing prices. The major increase that Canadians are suffering from, especially on food, is with respect to climate change. I have asked a number of Conservative members over the course of the last couple of years to explain to me why prices for food in the United States have increased at the same rate they have increased in Canada. They have increased at the same rate, even though there is not a national price on pollution in the United States.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are still heckling me. They cannot even accept the evidence before them that it is climate change. They cannot accept it from the farmers in their own ridings. I have seen it in Niagara with vine loss.

(1110) Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we need to be accurate because this is for the historical record. My hon. colleague claimed that the Conservatives were heckling. I think it was just a bunch of grunts and snorts. I think he should be accurate about how the Conservatives are responding.

The Deputy Speaker :

That is not a point of order. While I do appreciate the levity that the hon. member tries to bring to the House, let us try to be serious in the discussion we are having today.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Speaker, I expect a little better from the member in the seriousness of this debate. I know he believes passionately about this. Speaking about farmers back home, just a couple of years ago we saw a 25% loss of vines in the grape industry in Niagara. We are seeing catastrophic losses in British Columbia. I know that some members represent those farmers. Again, as I said, there have been historic fires and floods. Those costs are borne by Canadians, and what do Conservatives have to say to those Canadians? They have no plan. There is nothing on the table, and those costs will continue to increase.

People may not be able to get insurance. That is a reality as one's insurance costs will go up, but that is ignored. It is funny. The first time I heard a Conservative politician even mention a rebate was when the premier of the government in Saskatchewan was trying to reassure Saskatchewan residents that they should not worry as they would still get their rebates, and that is because Canadians look forward to seeing that. Conservatives ignore that whole aspect of it.

They do not address it, and they make up numbers on the cost of the price on pollution, even though they know full well that Canadians, especially lower-income Canadians, are much better off. By cutting the price on pollution, the biggest recipient would be the oil companies, and they would not pass that along. As we have now seen, oil companies are having record profits. It is a commodity-based industry. They are not going to pass that profit onto us. This is about the Conservatives standing up for big oil, which is truly unfortunate.

I believe some of them do understand that there is a climate crisis before us, but why is there no plan? All of them ran on pricing pollution. A couple of years ago it was fine for them to go door to door to say that they were going to price pollution. It was not a plan that I particularly agreed with, but it was nice that every party in this country, including every member sitting here, ran on pricing pollution, knowing we need an environmental plan. This evening there will be tributes to the late prime minister Brian Mulroney. In all of the speeches yesterday, there was talk of him being a great statesman.

We are lucky as Canadians to have had him at the helm to work with the United States and other countries to get things done, whether that was for apartheid or environmental issues. One of those issues was pricing pollution. I think we can all remember the scourge of acid rain, what it was doing, the concerns Canadians had and the way to fix it.

An hon. member: It was not a carbon tax.

Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member heckled me that it is not a carbon tax. The way to fix it was to price pollution, to price the thing one did not want so one has less of it. This is cognitive dissonance. They cannot get it through their heads that this works. They can yell and try to shout me down, but it worked. Former prime minister Mulroney worked with his counterparts in the United States. They are laughing, which is unbelievably shocking. However, it worked. They worked with premiers across parties. They worked with the Liberal premier in Ontario.

They worked with the president of the United States. They worked across the world to get a price on pollution so that they could eliminate the scourge of acid ran. We saw that it is not an issue. Canada can be a leader, which we choose to be, or we can go the Conservative way and just deny this incredible threat that is facing us. In 2015, Canada was on track for our emissions to grow to 815 megatonnes by 2030. Conservatives had no climate plan. It was free to pollute, and oil and gas companies were allowed to emit unlimited pollution.

(1115) Our latest update projects that our emissions will be 467 megatonnes in 2030, which is 43% below where they should be. I would have thought that in this place we could all agree that we do not like pollution. I would have thought that this would be a consensus we could all come to. Unfortunately, it is not. As a result of our work, our emissions have declined by 7% since 2015 for the first time ever and we are on track to meet our climate targets. I occasionally speak of them as my two favourite constituents, Hannah and Ethan, who are my son and daughter. They are seven and five years old.

I am disappointed that we do not have conversations about what the future will look like for them in 2030 or 2050. We look at a party that only wants there to be profits for oil companies right now. I am hoping that for the rest of day we can have that debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. First, I want to wish my father a happy birthday today. On a more sombre note, I also want to recognize the life of a constituent, Ms. Gemma Bittante, who passed away recently. She was a pillar in my life, a pillar in the Italian community and somebody who will be greatly missed. She gave hours and hours of volunteer work and made me hot dogs when I was just a little kindergarten student. May perpetual light shine upon her. I wish her family the best in this difficult time.

I listened with intent to my hon. colleague's speech. He spoke about disincentivizing, and that is my word, not the word he used, certain behaviours and we tax those. In my view, the problem with the carbon tax is that we cannot disincentivize people from eating, and the carbon tax impacts the price of food. One cannot disincentivize people from driving when they have a rural location. How can this lead to the result that the Liberal Party wants when the reality is that people need to do the things it is trying to curtail?

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Speaker, again, the rebate is not mentioned, which covers the things he is talking about. Farmers are exempt. Farm diesel is exempt from the price on pollution. We can incentivize car companies, for example. The auto industry is one of the most innovative in the world when it comes to greening up. We have much more fuel-efficient vehicles precisely because of initiatives by government and regulation in terms of making cars less polluting.

I know that they would like to throw that away, but I honestly believe that the member, who comes from a province that has suffered from the severe impacts of climate change, wants to see action rather than saying that we do not care, which seems to be where the Conservative Party is right now.

(1120) [ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, former environment minister Catherine McKenna , who worked to implement the carbon tax, spoke to the media yesterday. She said that the Liberal government had done a poor job of selling its own environmental and economic measure and that it was a shame the Conservatives had completely taken control of the narrative. She wondered how this could have happened. According to her, the Minister of Finance apparently was not too keen on the idea of environmental measures and was more on the side of the oil companies. This is information that was recently revealed by the media.

Can my colleague tell me when the Liberals are finally going to take back control of the narrative and defend the measure they put in place, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Incidentally, this measure is not going to do the job on its own. The government should put other measures in place so that we can meet our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

[ English ]

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec has shown us how effective a price on pollution has been, which was in existence well before the federal price and well before we got elected. Some members of the Conservative Party were members of a British Columbia Conservative Party that brought in a price on pollution because they knew it was effective.

I think it is going to take all of us to dispel the misinformation that is being spouted by the Conservative Party on this issue, to care about the climate, to care about our children and future generations or to at least have the Conservatives come up with some kind of plan. Someone called the price on pollution a magic bullet. It is not, but the Conservatives offer nothing. We could maybe demand that they offer something to explain to Canadians what they are going to do.

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, we lived through the dismal decade of the Harper years, when Canada was the fourth-worst country in the world with respect to emissions around climate change. We saw the doubling of housing prices under the Conservatives. We saw the doubling of food bank line-ups under the Conservatives. We saw people forced to work longer and longer as the retirement age of seniors was scrapped. It was terrible. My question for the Liberals this. Why have they continued so many of the same practices? The massive handouts to oil and gas CEOs have continued under the Liberals.

Yes, they have moved up from the absolutely deplorable record of the climate-denying Conservatives, but only a few spots. The reality is that the Liberals should be putting in place things that the NDP have been pushing in the House of Commons as the adults in the House, such as ensuring that we actually have an excess profits tax, that we end oil and gas subsidies and that we actually invest in clean energy. Why are the Liberals not doing the things that they know they have to do, if we are really to beat this battle against climate change?

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Speaker, we are doing it. We are ending fossil fuel subsidies. We are engaging in serious plans on technology and on other issues. It is not just a price on pollution; it is a comprehensive plan. We are working on it, and we are happy to work with the NDP on this issue. We have been taking action since 2015, and we will continue to do so.

[ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia , with whom I will be sharing my time, I find the motion a bit odd. It is based on a survey, not facts. It is a motion that misleads Quebeckers and Canadians. It says the carbon tax increase planned for April 1 will take place immediately when it is in fact staggered until 2030 or 2031. To be clear, it is not our job to tell the opposition parties what to do with their opposition days, but the Conservatives are obsessed with the carbon tax. They cannot sleep at night, and have no other content, so this is their focus. It is their choice.

Nonetheless, their motion could at least contain facts. That would be a good start. It is not a motion based on science. The Conservative Party could have talked about global warming and offered alternative solutions, but it did not. Nor is it a motion based on respect for Quebec, since nowhere does it mention that the federal carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. I will therefore repeat so it is clear for the Conservatives: the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, either directly or indirectly, through regulation or through the back door.

Lastly, this motion is not even about sound management of public funds, since it does not address the $83 billion the government has earmarked for oil subsidies. Yesterday, in the rather embarrassing speech given by the Leader of the Opposition in honour of Mr. Mulroney, it was stated that Mr. Mulroney reduced the size of government. The Conservatives could have tabled a motion to cut the size of government by $83 billion, but they did not, because they are oil Marxist-Leninists.

The motion tabled for consideration was written and proposed by someone incompetent who would be fired from any workplace where facts, knowledge and rigour are required. We can draw our own conclusions. Now, I would like to take advantage of this lull to thank the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis . I feel this is the right time. Under the Charest government—because, as we know, she is a Liberal—she was part of the cabinet that brought in the array of decrees that introduced the Quebec emissions trading system.

Because of the now-Conservative member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, whom I thank from the bottom of my heart, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. It does not apply directly. It does not apply either by law or under the clean fuel regulations, which the Conservatives have dubbed the second carbon tax in an attempt to mislead Quebeckers. We have more stringent legislation, and our businesses know that we will continue to be consistent, that we will apply it. Our businesses have already started complying, and it is working.

The Conservatives' latest assertion to dupe Quebeckers is that it applies to Quebec through the back door. Listening to them, it is as though this glass of water in front of me is made of propane and that lemons are made of Alberta diesel. They claim everything we buy is made in Alberta. We even hit a world record recently. As we know, there is parliamentary work to be done here. The work of Parliament must be taken seriously.

Yesterday, in committee meetings, where we are supposed to work on important issues for Quebeckers and Canadians, the Conservatives paralyzed proceedings with motions on the carbon tax, suggesting that it applies to Quebec. In the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, they moved motions regarding the carbon tax as it relates to immigrants, when it does not apply in Quebec and they are not even in Canada. That is what the Conservatives have come to—

(1125) [ English ]

The Deputy Speaker :

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Greg McLean :

Mr. Speaker, I am a member from Calgary, and I sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. No motion was received on behalf of my party regarding the carbon tax. Could my colleague correct the record?

The Deputy Speaker :

I think we could save that for questions and comments.

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, they were moved, actually. They may not have been debated, but they were moved. I am going to say something that will please the member from Calgary even more, since he likes this sort of thing. The Conservatives moved a motion on the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I just want everyone to think about that for a moment. Let that sink in. The Conservatives moved a motion on the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. However, that is nothing.

Yesterday, they debated motions on the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and the member for South Shore—St. Margarets asked telecom CEOs what effect the carbon tax would have on cellphone bills. The CEOs of the biggest companies looked at him like he came from another galaxy. They told them that it had no effect on Quebeckers' cellphone bills. However, he kept going and kept asking the same question again, as though a committee worked the same way torture does, as though the more he laid into them, the more they would talk. He was told again that it had no impact.

However, the world record was set at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier debated two motions at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is the only one of the 42 million people in Canada who speaks French to diesel. He is the only such person in Canada, because he is trying to get into cabinet. He is prepared to do anything, including grovelling, and he believes propane is bilingual. He is the only person like that in Canada. I could not make this stuff up. There are lists of things like that.

This is a party that has no respect for parliamentary institutions, no respect for the intelligence of Canadians and Quebeckers, and no respect for facts. This party has no respect for anything. Meanwhile, they are not attacking the oil subsidies. They say they want to shrink the size of government, provided that oil is not affected. There are two kinds of Conservatives who foist this kind of debate on us. The first kind are the creationists, for whom human biology originates with Adam and Eve in fig leaves, the apple, the serpent and all that.

They believe that the Earth is flat and that climate change does not exist. They are told to be quiet, but they exist and there are many of them. These people believe things that are not true, but I think that they are sincere in their beliefs. Then there are the other members of this party, particularly the Conservatives from Quebec, the ones who are pro-Charest, former Liberals and former members of Action Démocratique du Québec. These people supported the Quebec system, and today they want to become ministers. What do they say?

First they say that this is not an environmental plan, but rather a tax plan, even though anyone who has studied taxation beyond the fundamentals was taught that, in a modern tax system, taxation has an impact on the environment. These members are lying to Quebeckers. They say that it is not working because greenhouse gas emissions have increased. They are incapable of understanding that, without appropriate pricing, emissions would have increased more rapidly. These people have driver's licences, yet they do not know the difference between braking and reversing. I would certainly never lend them my car.

These people say that, because China has done nothing, we will do nothing. The Conservatives have decided to look to Communist China for policy inspiration. They are waiting for the Communists to act first. What next? Will they congratulate Putin on his re-election? It almost seems that way. These Conservatives are inconsistent. The reason they are acting this way is quite simple: They are exploiting people's distress. That is why today's motion refers to a survey, not to facts. That tells us how they think and how they practise politics.

It tells us what they think of people's intelligence and how they will govern when the time comes. It will be by survey. Meanwhile, in Quebec, we made the transition. We were smart about it, because we realized that everybody else was transitioning and that western Canada could not separate itself from the rest of the world, any more than Quebec could. That said, we can and should separate from Canada. What did we do? We banked on the environment and the transition.

Today, it is working, and companies from all over the world are coming to set up shop in Quebec, where there is clean energy, because, in a few years' time, their customers will be asking for decarbonized goods. In fact, we now wonder if we will have enough megawatts of clean energy to have them come here, create jobs and generate economic growth. We have created five industrial clusters in Canada with superclusters and oil money. Within the next decade, we should be able to create 47 new ones.

(1130) Meanwhile, the Conservatives want to live in the Stone Age. They want to live in the past. If anyone wants to know whether I support this motion, I will let my colleagues figure out the answer. I think that the smart people will be able to guess that the Bloc Québécois will vote against it.

Mr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Bloc Québécois colleague's comments, which were very on point. I would like to make a correction: Four motions, not two, were debated yesterday at the Standing Committee on Official Languages concerning official languages and diesel. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Conservative Party's old electoral platform from the last election. How does he think the Conservatives can reconcile that electoral platform with the fight against climate change and their discourse today, which is completely inconsistent with it?

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, because I am in the House for this debate, I will not be able to attend Mr. Mulroney's funeral, so I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the family and my deep respect for Mr. Mulroney, who was a Progressive Conservative and who believed in the market. He knew that incentives could change behaviour. That is why, when it came to acid rain, Mr. Mulroney was very proud of the Montreal Protocol, which introduced an emissions trading mechanism. Earlier, a Conservative member yelled out that it was not a carbon tax. It is a pricing mechanism.

These two mechanisms have their pros and cons, but they are market-based. The Conservatives no longer believe in the market. They believe in using public money and giving that money to companies they are friends with. If that is what the Conservative Party is like, I think many people who voted for them in the past are going to have second thoughts.

(1135) Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I heard the speech made by my colleague from Quebec. He was very interesting, and very passionate, but does he live in the real world? I am not certain. He said that the Conservatives took advantage of people's troubles. That is interesting. Could people's troubles be caused by the carbon tax itself? The cost of living is rising. Inflation is on the rise, too. Could the relationship between the two be the cause of Canadians' troubles? Will he continue to downplay Canadians' troubles?

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not ask that question when the price of gas went down at Thanksgiving last year. He was too preoccupied with the price of turkey.

Since he asked earlier, I will give my colleague the list of the committees at which the Conservatives moved motions about the carbon tax yesterday, bringing the meetings to a standstill: the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Science and Research, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

They brought all that to a standstill yesterday. It was a demonstration and a quantification of how little respect they have for our institutions.

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoyed his comments about propane and diesel and the French language. This is a prime example of the Conservatives' almost pathological obsession with attacking the price on pollution. It is an obsession that blinds them to the climate crisis, which is real and has an impact on forest fires, droughts and floods. What does my Bloc Québécois colleague think about the Conservatives not having a climate and environmental plan?

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, there is something missing from the Conservatives' platform, and that is the principle by which everyone must pull their weight. The logic behind the Conservative Party of Canada not having a plan is that, since China is being regressive, they will be regressive too. Since others are not doing the right thing, they will not do the right thing either. The Conservatives' logic, especially under their new leader, is to compare themselves to whoever is the worst, since that is the only way they can look good. I think that that is not the type of excellence we are used to seeing from political parties.

Obviously, we all have our differences, but I think that, at one time, in Mr. Mulroney's time, for example, the Progressive Conservative Party had far more dignity and was far more consistent.

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who just spoke. I dream of having that kind of presence and the skill to deliver that kind of speech. What I want to do is present the facts that were recently reported by Radio-Canada about the whole carbon tax issue. I think it is extremely relevant to today's debate. As my colleague said, today's fairly concise Conservative Party motion is based on the results of a survey of Canadians. The motion reads as follows:

That, given that 70% of provinces and 70% of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax hike on April 1, the House call on the NDP-Liberal coalition to immediately cancel this hike.

The Conservative Party claims that 70% of Canadians are against this carbon tax hike, so I took a look at the survey to see if that is actually true. I discovered that the poll was about the government's measure to exempt home heating oil from the carbon pricing act, not about the existence of the act itself. The Conservative Party therefore chose to put their spin on the numbers, perhaps because “Axe the tax” makes a good slogan. However, it is not really true that 70% of Canadians are against the 23% increase that will take effect on April 1, because this increase will be gradual.

It is true that, at some point, the carbon tax will reach a certain amount, but these amounts will be spread over several years, until 2030. What they are claiming here is a bit of a stretch. As my colleague who spoke before me was saying, this is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is against the Conservatives’ motion. I looked for other figures. It is funny, because I found the same numbers, that is, 70% and 23%, but they refer to something completely different. I found out that 70% of the global GDP has a carbon price. More than 48 countries around the globe have a carbon tax or a cap and trade system.

It is now standard in most industrialized countries to put a price on pollution, and that is what Canada did a few years ago. The 23% is simple enough. According to the same study, 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions are covered by a price on pollution. I thought it was funny to find these same numbers but then realizing they mean different things. Obviously, I did not pull these figures out of a hat; they were published by France’s ministry of energy transition. It is interesting to see what other countries are doing instead of complaining of what we have at home.

The Conservative motion asks that “the House call on the NDP-Liberal coalition to immediately cancel this hike.” That is interesting because it is the first time the coalition is being called “la coalition entre les libéraux et les néo-démocrates” in French. Normally, the Conservatives use different formulations when they talk about the coalition. In English, they say that it is the NDP-Liberal coalition, or a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, but when they are talking to Quebeckers in French, they say that it is a coalition between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals.

Unfortunately for them, the motion does not include this nuance. It mentions only a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. Let us get back to the famous carbon tax hike. It will indeed reach $170 by 2030. For now, it is set at $65 per tonne. Unlike what the Conservative Party would have us believe, it is not the Bloc Québécois that says we must increase the price on carbon pollution to help Canada achieve its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO. The Office of the PBO is a well-respected institution.

I think that the Conservative Party should believe the figures published by the PBO. Not so very long ago, he said that, to achieve the Paris Agreement targets by 2030, we would have to increase the price on carbon to $239 per tonne. The carbon tax is a tool Canada uses to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and this tool should benefit people who are a bit more economically conservative. It is therefore a little hard to understand why the Conservatives are so against the price on pollution.

Radio-Canada’s Fannie Olivier published an analysis a few days ago entitled “À quoi ressemblerait un Canada sans prix sur le carbone?” or what would Canada be like without carbon pricing?

(1140) The Conservative Party is threatening to axe the tax as soon as it comes to power. Let us go back to 2016 when the Prime Minister took advantage of a debate on the ratification of the Paris Agreement to announce a price on carbon. He told the provinces that they would have to comply. He gave them two years to do so. Then, he would start imposing a tax of $10 per tonne that would gradually increase. Obviously, a few provincial environment ministers did not take that very well.

In Quebec, we were not concerned, because we already had a cap and trade system in place with California that has been working perfectly well since 2013. Therefore, this carbon pricing has no impact in Quebec. My colleague explained that. The carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, despite what some may think, because, unfortunately, people have been spreading misinformation. Some provinces even challenged the tax before the Supreme Court, but they were unsuccessful. There is a real power struggle with the provinces.

It must be said that the Liberal government, as I mentioned earlier, has not done a very good job of explaining this environmental measure. It recently created a loophole in its own legislation by introducing a three-year exemption for heating oil with the aim of quelling discontent in the Atlantic provinces. That did nothing to help its popularity ratings, unfortunately. What would happen if we woke up tomorrow and there was no longer a carbon tax in Canada?

Sébastien Jodoin, a professor in the faculty of law at McGill University, says that there would be significant consequences, starting with the hit on the pockets of many Canadians. That is interesting. Conservatives often tell us that people have no money, that they are poor, that the carbon tax is making those who are poor even poorer. However, we know that 80% of Canadians who pay the tax receive a refund from the federal government that exceeds what they pay. Should carbon pricing be abolished, they would have less money in their pockets. I find that interesting.

Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Chair in Energy Sector Management at HEC Montréal, says that “the great irony is that the majority of Canadians in provinces that pay the federal tax, earn money from it. Abolishing it would impoverish Canadians.” That is interesting. Unfortunately that is not a speech we hear often from the Conservative Party. Obviously, removing it would also have an impact on greenhouse gases. The government is trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions with this measure. Getting rid of it would have consequences in the short, medium and long terms.

The carbon tax currently being used by the Government of Canada seeks to reduce one-third of the emissions in the country by 2030. It must be said that the way things are going, we are nowhere close to meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. I would even go so far as to say that we need other measures, starting with the money that is given to the oil and gas companies. These companies make billions of dollars in profits every year and the government keeps taking taxpayer money and giving it to those people. I think we could take that money and help people cope with the cost of living.

We could invest in green energy, such as wind, solar and hydroelectricity in Quebec. We need investment in these economic sectors that are good for the planet. We need to find other ways. If the Conservative Party wants to abolish carbon pricing, then it needs to come up with other, meaningful ways to fight climate change. I want to come back to the fact that 23% of global emissions are now covered by a carbon pricing or emissions trading system. That statistic is also from the World Bank.

In her article, Fannie Olivier said that the number of countries that have such a tax has significantly increased in recent years. We are talking about nearly fifty countries or states that have made the leap. Take, for example, Vietnam, or even Turkey. Doing away with the tax on carbon would really go against what is being done internationally. I still have a lot more I would like to say, but I see that my time is up, so I will stop there.

(1145) [ English ]

Mr. Kyle Seeback :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would like to inform the House that the remaining Conservative caucus speaking slots are hereby divided in two.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for my Bloc Québécois colleague. According to her, the carbon tax should be $239 per tonne rather than $170. Did she take into account the implicit carbon tax created by the subsidies to battery plants? The Liberal government has given approximately $45 billion in subsidies to foreign companies so far. Does she agree with the figure given by the Quebec government, which determined that the implicit carbon tax was $800 per tonne, money that comes out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets?

(1150) Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Mr. Speaker, I would rather not be misquoted. What I was saying about the $239 per tonne is that that is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is proposing. It is not the Bloc Québécois that is proposing it, it is the Parliamentary Budget Officer. What he is saying is that, with the current tax, about eight in 10 Canadian households get more money back than they pay with the tax. That seems clear enough to me.

[ English ]

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member and the speaker before her have put on the record. The question I have is with respect to the spreading of misinformation. If one takes a look at social media, there is a great deal of information out there that is just not true. Can the member provide her thoughts on the impact this has on sound, good public policy, when we have the official opposition spreading misinformation to the detriment to the policy itself?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Mr. Speaker, disinformation is becoming more and more of a problem. Now we are seeing it with respect to this government measure. If I had one piece of advice to give the Liberal Party, the party currently in power, it would be to take back control of the narrative on its own environmental and economic measures. Why is the Conservative Party making axing the carbon tax the slogan for its next election campaign on the pretext that it is what is making Canadians poorer? We agree on the fact that the carbon tax does not contribute that much to inflation. It contributes only 0.1%.

The former minister of environment and climate change, Catherine McKenna, says that it is supposed to be a good environmental and economic measure. Why do the Liberals not say so? I urge them to speak up.

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. However, there is something I am having a hard time understanding. Quebeckers have a good understanding of the impact of climate change. There is no doubt that climate change is having an impact, that climate change is costing Quebeckers a lot of money, and that something needs to be done. However, there are Conservative members in Quebec who deny the existence of climate change. The Conservative Party systematically refuses to put the least policy in place to counter climate change.

That is what I have trouble understanding. I would like to know whether my colleague can explain to me how Quebec's Conservative members can deny the existence of climate change.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Mr. Speaker, no one can really explain this. No sane person in Quebec thinks that climate change is not real. We are living it. I am living it in my riding with coastal erosion. It is a scourge and we need to do more to fight it. One of the first things we can do is put a price on pollution, but we also need to stop subsidizing oil companies, which pollute enormously. In Bill C‑59 , which we voted on yesterday, there are still billions of dollars in tax credits for these oil companies that make billions of dollars in profits.

If we took all that money and helped Canadians cope with the rising cost of living, it seems to me we would be further ahead. It seems to me we would be further ahead if we invested in green economies and green energy. I will stop here. I hope the NDP will support these measures.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . The Conservatives seem to be oblivious to the fact that the climate crisis is happening; that it is costing Canadians billions of dollars; that it is costing farmers their crops; that it is costing indigenous communities, as they are evacuated from their homes each wildfire season; and that it is costing British Columbians their homes and their livelihoods during extreme flooding, as well as their lives and their loved ones when there are record-breaking heat domes. The climate emergency is here.

The Conservatives refuse to present a plan to tackle the crisis; instead, they are more interested in helping out CEOs in big oil and gas than truly helping Canadians who are struggling. Alberta declared the beginning of their wildfire season in February. Last summer, kids could not play outside because of the smoke-filled air. People could not go outside without choking on dust and smoke. At the end of 2023, 18.5 million hectares of forest had burned, forcing thousands from their homes. Many people lost everything.

For some context, the worst wildfire season up to then burned 7.6 million hectares; that was in 1989. Now it is at 18.5 million hectares, more than double the total land size of Portugal. These wildfires are getting worse because there are massive droughts impacting whole regions across the country. The soil is so dry that, when the fires start, they can keep burning and nothing gets in the way. The impacts are not just on our forests. Farmers across Canada are having to face these awful drought conditions. In Canada right now, including in Alberta, there are states of emergency because of the drought conditions.

There are negotiations about water allocations, discussions on who gets to use the water. Farmers cannot rely on natural rain, and there are massive threats of crop failure. In my home province of British Columbia, the provincial government is already preparing for a catastrophically dry summer. Yesterday, an $80 million fund was announced to help farmers invest in water infrastructure. Conservatives are blaming the high cost of groceries on the carbon tax, but what about crop failures? What about the devastating conditions farmers are facing because of the climate crisis?

What are the Conservatives doing to address this water crisis that our farmers are forced to deal with? I will note that it was a New Democrat provincial government, not a Conservative one, that announced the water infrastructure fund. The Conservatives have no plan to address the climate crisis. They have no plan to stop wildfires. They are going to let our kids continue to choke on smoke in the summer, when communities are forced to evacuate their homes. The Conservatives think it is okay to let the biggest polluters off the hook for literally burning our planet. I want to talk about the carbon tax.

Obviously, Conservatives want to get rid of it. They want to make it free for the biggest polluters, big oil and gas companies, to pollute. Meanwhile, they would cut and gut the rebates that put more money back in the pockets of Canadians. Getting rid of these rebates, which most Canadians receive, will hurt lower-income Canadians the most. However, the Liberals' pricing scheme has allowed the biggest polluters, the biggest corporations, to pay less than everyone else does.

The problem with the current construction of the carbon tax, and the PBO has put out a number of reports that confirm this, is that 80% of Canadians get more money back than they pay. This is a fact the Conservatives continue to choose to ignore. Even if the Conservatives only care about pocketbook issues, if they deny the reality of climate change, if they ignore the fact that the climate crisis is a pocketbook issue, they should want to give Canadians a break on their home heating. They should want to make big oil and gas companies pay what they owe.

However, when the NDP presented a motion to do just that, to take the GST off home heating, and to include those who use electricity to heat their homes, the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against it.

(1155) The motion also called for an excess profits tax on big oil and gas companies, a policy that recent polling shows the vast majority of Canadians support. To make life even more affordable, the NDP suggested making heat pumps free for middle and low-income Canadians. When it comes to addressing the climate crisis and the cost of living crisis, the NDP is the only party that is offering solutions. Canadians want real solutions.

They are struggling to make ends meet and they need support, but not by taking away hundreds of dollars in rebates for a tiny break on carbon pricing, leaving Canadians worse off than they were before. They want real solutions that will help them afford their groceries, rent, child care and their medication. The Conservatives will never make the housing market more affordable. They will never fight for national pharmacare, medication for the people who need it. They will fight against pharmacare.

They will never take on the grocery store chain CEOs, the big pharmaceutical companies, real estate developers or big oil and gas CEOs, because these are the people who make up their governing body. Half of the Conservatives' national body is made up of lobbyist from these sectors, and lobbyists are flocking to the Leader of the Opposition 's cash for access events. However, these are the same companies and the same CEOs who are cozy with the Liberal government. Canadians want a government that will look out for them, but the Liberals and Conservatives are looking out for the interests of CEOs and lobbyists.

Canadians also want a government that will address the wildfires, floods, droughts, deadly heat domes and the climate-related emergencies they are facing. Canadians are scared about the future. Despite the Liberals' words saying that they believe in climate change, they invite oil and gas CEOs to help craft their climate plan. They water down key policies like an emissions cap on oil and gas and refuse to take the excess profits off big oil.

Canadians are frustrated with the carbon tax, because when it comes to the Liberal government, they are not seeing the climate action that is needed to address the climate crisis. When the Liberal government declared a climate emergency in 2019, the very next day it bought a pipeline.

More recently, even though it has been promised for years, when it comes to eliminating domestic fossil fuel subsidies, when it comes to handing out billions of dollars to big oil and gas companies, the Liberals presented a plan, after delay and delay, that was littered with loopholes, allowing these big oil and gas CEOs to keep lining their pockets, continuing making record profits and continuing to accept government subsidies.

When it came to capping oil and gas emissions just a few months ago, the Liberals watered down the cap so badly that it does not even line up with their own weak climate plan, with our Paris targets. It feels like the Liberals have truly stacked their emissions reduction plan on carbon pricing. It is not a silver bullet. Then the Liberals botched their communications to Canadians so badly that of course Canadians are frustrated. They are paying more at the gas pumps, more to heat their homes, more on groceries and more for their medication.

All they hear is the disinformation the Conservatives are feeding them, but the truth is that the Liberals are not making it easy for everyday Canadians to get off fossil fuels. Our NDP team knows that the climate crisis is a pocketbook issue. We have proposed many ways to make life more affordable and to tackle the climate crisis. We need to take the GST off home heating, give Canadians heat pumps and invest in public transit. We need to fix the greener homes program and ensure that big oil and gas is paying what it owes.

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have the courage to take on big oil and gas, but we do. Canadians want a government that looks out for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the greener homes program, which is a Liberal government program. When the member talks about heat pumps, again, it is a Liberal government program. There are many things such as the electrification of vehicles. The incentives that are provided by this government are extensive. However, that is not necessarily what my question is about. The Conservatives will say that the residents of Winnipeg North will not benefit from the carbon rebate, when 80% of people will get more money back than they pay.

They are saying that they are going to axe the tax in British Columbia, but there is no carbon tax. I am wondering if she could address the issue of misinformation.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly start with heat pumps, because that is what the member also started with. The greener homes program was riddled with problems. So many middle-income Canadians could not navigate the system and could not afford to pay the money up front. Low-income Canadians were excluded altogether. That is why New Democrats forced the government, through our supply and confidence agreement, to include a commitment to provide energy efficiency to low-income Canadians. We are going to keep pushing the government.

It is unfortunate that it cancelled that program and has not provided a plan to replace it, a meaningful plan to help low-income and middle-income Canadians heat their homes efficiently. On disinformation, it has been beyond disheartening and atrocious to see Conservatives tour around Canada, not only making up facts or maybe generously telling fiction to Canadians about how carbon pricing works, but also going to my home province of British Columbia and pretending that there is a federal carbon tax there. We just heard similarly from my Bloc colleagues.

I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is in Quebec saying that he will axe the tax. It is a disservice to our democracy and Canadians. Canadians deserve better.

(1205) Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague realizes that coal consumption worldwide hit record usage last year. In 2024-25 we are going to hit another record. I will quote Premier Furey, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who said, “The issue for this particular tax is there are limited options to change right now in Newfoundland and Labrador....In the absence of the ability to change, what does the tax really accomplish?” It accomplishes nothing.

What would accomplish something would be to cut the red tape and shorten the approval process for building mines to mine things like lithium, nickel, copper and whatnot, the rare earth metals needed for the green transition. The approval time to build a new mine to mine these precious metals required for the transition is 18 years. In the U.S. it is 40% less and in Australia it is 25% less. I would like to know what the NDP-Liberal costly coalition's plan is to reduce approval times to mine green metals.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of a Conservative climate plan. Yesterday, I heard Conservatives and Liberals arguing back and forth about who built more pipelines and who could get pipelines approved more quickly. This is not a future for Canada. Once again, we see the Conservatives denying that the climate crisis is real and failing to tackle and meet this moment, while Canadians are worried about not only their future but their present reality. The member mentioned coal. Thermal coal exports tripled since the current government came into power.

Imagine a government committing to phase out thermal coal and end thermal coal exports, but instead it triples them. It does not tell Canadians that it has done this. It waits for a New Democrat to find out that information and make it public. That is why I have tabled a motion in the House to ban thermal coal exports. We need to tackle the climate crisis like we want to win.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party and its representatives in the House can be criticized for many things, and I point that out whenever I can, but I want to start by saying that one thing we cannot fault them for is their lack of determination. There is a definite consistency in their obsession with the price on pollution or the carbon tax. One thing is for sure: They are not giving up. They keep coming back to us with this fantasy of doing nothing to fight climate change, this climate crisis affecting the entire planet.

Every day, every week, we hear that the situation is worse than what the experts thought, worse than what the experts at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, have been telling us for years. Let us look at some very recent and quite harrowing examples. Let us start with the price on pollution or the carbon tax, which has been in place in some provinces for a few years now. I would remind the House that this does not apply in Quebec, despite what my Conservative colleagues from Quebec are saying, which is that a trucker who fills up in Ontario could feel the effects. It is minimal.

It is almost insignificant. Quebec has had a carbon exchange for years now, which is a slightly different tool from a price on pollution or a carbon tax. What the Conservatives never say and what the Liberals have such a hard time explaining is that there is a financial compensation program for middle-class families as well as for the poorest workers in the provinces where this carbon tax applies.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is a leading authority on Parliament Hill, 80% of Canadian households in provinces where this applies get more back than they pay in carbon taxes, a legitimate price indicator tool to change behaviours. It also seems really strange to me that the Conservatives have spent years refusing to apply a market rule that could change the behaviour of individuals and big corporations or maybe both. The people in greatest need, those struggling to pay rent or buy groceries, will receive financial compensation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that 80% of Canadian households will receive more money back than they pay out. The Conservatives say nothing about that and the Liberals, for whatever reason, are incapable of explaining it. The political communication has been terrible. According to Statistics Canada's models, 94% of households with an annual income below $50,000 will get back more in rebates or compensation than they pay out in carbon taxes applied to their daily or weekly purchases. Obviously, we will never hear