OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 296 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 9, 2024 DEBATES No. 296 No. 296 N o 296 Volume 151 296 09 04 2024 2024/04/09 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 ] Committees of the House Science and Research

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, entitled “Pay Gaps Among Faculty at Canadian Universities”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. I thank our witnesses, our clerk and our analysts for the great work on this, and our committee members for some great questions.

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe that if people work hard, they should be able to get ahead, no matter who they are. That is why, unfortunately, we had to write a supplemental report to clarify where the Liberals fell short in this report, as in many other areas of governance. The federal government must respect provincial jurisdiction. No one benefits when provincial jurisdiction is ignored. Doing so merely helps those who have a responsibility to pass the buck.

The federal government should recognize that much of the responsibility for removing barriers to pay equity in universities falls on the universities themselves. We need to focus on who actually has the ability to make the changes that are needed. The federal government must ensure that the federally managed research grants and programs do not enable discriminatory hiring practices. Conservatives believe that pay equity should be achieved by removing barriers that prevent the achievement of that goal, not by instituting new discriminatory hiring practices.

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

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Canada Summer Jobs Program”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. The Canada summer jobs program is a very important program for both young people and employers. On behalf of the committee, I thank all the witnesses who were kind enough to come and share with us their knowledge and expertise and how much they value the program.

(1005) [ English ]

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, on the Canada summer jobs report, Conservatives are tabling a dissenting report. I will summarize some of the points from that report. From the start, the program's accessibility to employers who must navigate through a complicated application process was repeatedly raised as a yearly challenge that they faced. A long application process leaves many non-technologically advanced employers confused about the steps they need to take to apply to receive funding from the program. As well, employers across the country can benefit from simplifying the application process and making it more accessible.

Another issue repeatedly highlighted with the Canada summer jobs program is a lack of clear service standards in responding to issues from confused applicants or relaying updated information on the program in a timely manner. The department also fails to communicate effectively to applicants about changes in funding at the beginning of the application process and a number of other key elements that employers rely on. The report makes no recommendations to ESDC to implement service standards in its review processes or processing times.

Lastly, it also mentions faith-based organizations' submissions, in passing, but it does not clearly present their concerns surrounding the fairness of eligibility screening processes. The absence of their points of view in the report does not fully represent the contrast in opinion the committee received in the briefs submitted.

Petitions Impaired Driving

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

Mr. Speaker, Stella Quinn Crawford, a three-year-old from Alberta, was killed by an impaired driver on the afternoon of April 15, 2023. Falon Milburn, Stella's aunt, reached out to my office to sponsor petition e-4710, and I am honoured to table this petition today to call upon the government to make these changes. The petition calls upon the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to require individuals convicted of multiple impaired driving charges for the same incident to serve prison sentences consecutively.

Falun Gong

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from residents across Canada, drawing to the attention of the House of Commons the following. Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate the Falun Gong.

Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine, and thousands have died as a result. The European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the organ harvesting abuses in China and calls for the government of China to end immediately the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners of conscience.

Therefore, the petitioners request the Canadian Parliament and the government to pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, to amend the Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and to publicly call for the end of the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Indigenous Artifacts

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to give voice to a number of local advocates who would like to see greater recognition for the 5,000-year-old Mnjikaning fish weirs, which are older than the Egyptian pyramids and one of the oldest, best-preserved wooden fish weirs in North America. The world knows too little about these fish weirs. The City of Orillia, Chippewas of Rama First Nation and the Township of Ramara have been working together to provide greater recognition.

Even Parks Canada recognizes that these fish weirs have a profound cultural and spiritual meaning for first nations peoples and are a critical component of our country's cultural heritage. These petitioners request that the government work with the Chippewas of Rama First Nation, the City of Orillia and the Township of Ramara to provide greater recognition for this wonderful Canadian historical artifact.

(1010) First Responders Tax Credit

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise today to table over 70 petitions in support of Bill C-310 , which is calling for the first responders tax credit for search and rescue volunteers and for volunteer firefighters to be increased from $3,000 to $10,000.

I want to give huge kudos to every member in the House and to every party, because we have had petitions tabled from the Green Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc and of course the New Democratic Party on behalf of firefighters and search and rescue volunteers from coast to coast to coast, calling for the government to make this change in the upcoming budget. This is a tribute to all the selfless hours those search and rescue volunteers put in. They put their lives on the line for us. It is critical that we support them and that the government supports them in this call to action.

Again, I put my hands up to the 165 communities that have written letters, to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs for the really important work and advocacy its members have been doing, but most importantly, to those who put their lives on the line for each and every one of us to make sure we are safe, especially in rural Canada.

Species at Risk

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

Mr. Speaker, you know what a stickler I am for the rules, but I support the member for Courtenay—Alberni breaking those rules in order to point out that on one petition at least, we really are in strong support, even though we are not supposed to say so, and that of course was the petition about the volunteer firefighter tax credit. I am presenting a petition that I will briefly summarize. Many of my constituents have asked me to present a petition to protect critical old-growth habitat, which is absolutely necessary for the survival of a species at critical risk.

It is threatened under the Species at Risk Act and is the marbled murrelet. Its Latin name is Brachyramphus marmoratus . Its habitat is limited specifically to old-growth forests along the B.C. west coast. Petitioners propose that the government take action to protect that critical habitat.

Firearms

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. The first one is a petition of the House that comes from Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-21 , a bill that targets law-abiding firearms owners. The petitioners say that hunting and firearms ownership play an important role in Canadian history and culture. The petitioners are concerned about the government's intent to ban several hunting rifles and shotguns, including bolt-action rifles. The petitioners ask that the government leave their guns alone, that it votes against Bill C-21 and that it protects the property rights of Canadian hunters. I support that wholeheartedly.

First Responders Tax Credit

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I also have another four petitions here, all along the same line. I am going to consolidate them. I am going to do it because I am eager to listen to my leader speak about axing the tax. In the interest of time, I am going to consolidate these four petitions from the RM of Emerson-Franklin, the RM of Springfield, the community of Niverville and the community of Kleefeld. They have signed petitions in support of Bill C-310 , which recognizes the many volunteer firefighter first responders we have. They are asking that the increase in the tax deduction be applied for them. I support that as well.

Having been a former volunteer ambulance driver attendant, I am sympathetic to the lifestyle that those guys choose for themselves and the volunteers who are in each and every one of our communities to keep Canadians safe.

The Deputy Speaker :

I want to give a quick reminder that we cannot support petitions. I know this has happened a couple of times today, starting from over on that side, and then it went over to this side. Whether we support a petition or not, make sure that we keep that to ourselves. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be tabling a petition today signed by dozens of people in British Columbia, including the Fraser Valley and Okanagan Valley regions, in support of the member for Courtenay—Alberni , who has just spoken, and his bill, Bill C-310 , which would provide support for volunteer firefighters. As one is well aware, volunteer firefighters increasingly, because of the climate crisis, are called upon to try to save our villages, towns and communities across the length and breadth of this land. They receive very little for all the sacrifices they make.

The member for Courtenay—Alberni has started a movement across the country. MPs from all parties have tabled petitions in support of this important legislation. This would increase the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and for search and rescue volunteers from $3,000 to $10,000. The government has the opportunity in next week's budget to make this a reality. These petitioners are urging the government to do that and to actually support volunteer firefighters across the country.

(1015) Air Service to India

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

Mr. Speaker, as one knows, once again, with the Indo-Canadian community's growth, we have seen exceptional relationships that continue to be built between Canada and India. As such, there has been an increased demand for direct flights internationally, from Canada going to India. The people who signed this petition are calling upon the legislatures and, in particular, the airlines to look at ways we can have additional direct flights from Canada to India.

Venezuela

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

Mr. Speaker, we are joined today on the Hill by some great members of the heroic, freedom-loving Latin community here in Canada. It is a great pleasure for me to table a petition on their behalf, highlighting the plight of some political prisoners in Venezuela. The people of Venezuela, the people of Cuba and of various other Latin American countries have suffered greatly under the scourge of communism, socialism and dictatorship.

Petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the plight of political prisoners, and they call for stronger action by the government in defence of those supporting freedom and democracy in Venezuela in particular, and various other South American countries as well. Petitioners highlight a number of the events in Venezuela, which include violations of fundamental human rights; persecution; unjust incarceration; torture and forced disappearance, in particular, of 257 individuals, including 146 military personnel.

They also highlight individuals with close connections to Canada, who are among those who have faced this persecution.

Petitioners ask the government to include political prisoners with close ties to Canada, particularly Ígbert José Marín Chaparro and Oswaldo Valentín García Palomo, in any discussions or negotiations to restore diplomatic ties between Canada and Venezuela, to advocate for the unconditional release of prisoners of conscience Ígbert José Marín Chaparro and Oswaldo Valentín García Palomo, due to their strong family ties in Canada, and of all political prisoners in Venezuela before any concessions are given to the Venezuelan government by Canada and by the international community, and to request the release and further return to Canada of those two individuals before any concessions are given to Venezuela, such as sanctions release, reopening of mutual embassies or economic agreements.

Natural Health Products

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the great people of Pickering, Uxbridge, Ajax and Whitby. They are calling on the House of Commons to immediately repeal the new regulatory constraints on natural health products passed last year. Millions of Canadians rely on the products, and the constraints have since affected their medical freedom and the choice and affordability of products.

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

(1020) [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

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

Motion moved:

That the House declare that the Prime Minister convene a carbon tax emergency meeting with all of Canada’s 14 first ministers; that this meeting address:

(

a) the ongoing carbon tax crisis and the financial burden it places on Canadians,

(

b) the Prime Minister's recent 23% carbon tax increase,

(

c) plans for provinces to opt-out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other responsible ideas to lower emissions, given that under the government's current environmental plan, Canada now ranks 62 out of 67 countries on the Climate Change Performance index; and

that this meeting be publicly televised and held within five weeks of this motion being adopted.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock . Imagine for a moment a person who fell into a coma in 2015 and who wakes up today. Imagine the last impression that they would have had at the time, in 2015, when inflation and interest rates were almost as low as they have ever been in the history of Canada. At that time, taxes were falling faster than at any time in Canadian history. The budget was balanced. Crime had just fallen 25%, and small-town folks could even leave their doors unlocked. Our borders were secure and our immigration system was working.

It was not perfect, but overall, established Canadians and newcomers were satisfied with the situation, which was orderly and compassionate. Housing cost half of what it does today, the average rent was $950, an almost laughably low number by today's standards, and take-home pay had risen by 10% after tax and after inflation. This represented one of the largest pay and income increases for Canadians in a half century. In fact, this was even making news internationally. The New York Times said that Canada's middle class was richer than America's for the first time.

At the same time, trouble was brewing in the world, with wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, none of which caused inflation here at home. However, now the person has awoken, eight years later, to find a completely different country. Inflation, after hitting a 40-year high, is still higher than its Bank of Canada target. Per capita income is declining. In fact, Canada has the worst per capita income growth rate of all the G7 countries, and it is expected to have the worst OECD growth out of 40 developed countries for the next five and a half years and the next 35 years.

Some families have had their existing mortgages extended to 90 years or even 120 years because their mortgage loan is higher now than when they took it out, due to interest rate hikes that the Prime Minister had promised would never occur. Houses in Canada now cost 50% more than in the United States. People can buy a castle in Sweden for a lower cost than they could buy a two-bedroom apartment in Kitchener. Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world according to UBS Bank. Vancouver is the third-most expensive city when comparing median income to median housing prices.

Vancouver is more expensive than New York, London, Singapore and other places that have more people, more money and less land. Fewer houses were built last year than in 1972. That person waking up today would learn something else: Our national debt has doubled. When they fell into a coma, the national debt was about $600 billion. Now it is up to $1.2 trillion.

(1025) The debt has doubled. This Prime Minister has added more to our national debt than all other prime ministers combined. The streets have become unsafe. There has been a 100% increase in the number of criminal shootings. People are afraid to walk down the street. Crime is everywhere. Cars are disappearing. When the person wakes up, they will hear Toronto's chief of police telling people to keep their keys near the door so that car thieves can peacefully steal their vehicles. That is the Canada they will wake up to.

The Prime Minister's solution to all this is to increase taxes and deficits and to let more criminals loose. Another thing the person will see is that the Bloc Québécois supported all of the policies that led to this nightmare. There is still hope, however, because there is something else the person will see when they wake up: a common-sense party that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

The first step will be for the Prime Minister to meet with the provincial premiers to reverse the policies that caused the hell we are experiencing across the country and to discuss axing the carbon tax and other taxes in order to allow Quebeckers and all Canadians to succeed through hard work and pay an affordable price for food, housing and gas in a free country. That is good old common sense, and that is what we are offering. [ English ] Imagine that, in fact, someone had been in a coma for the last eight years.

They would have gone to sleep in 2015 in a country where inflation and interest rates were rock-bottom, taxes were falling faster than at any time in Canadian history, the budget was balanced, crime had just fallen 25% so small-town folks could leave their doors unlocked, our borders were secure and our immigration system was uncontroversial, with everyone agreeing it worked and was the best in the world. Housing cost half of what it does today; the average rent was $950, an almost laughably low number by today's standards. Take-home pay had risen by 10% after tax, and after inflation in the preceding years.

The New York Times had just called Canada “the richest middle class”; in fact, it said that Canada's middle class was richer than America's for the first time. This was with lots of trouble in the world, with wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and, yes, Ukraine, none of which caused inflation here at home. At the time, of course, we had former prime minister Harper, who was able to keep inflation and unemployment low even while the world suffered turmoil. However, now the person has awoken, eight years later, to find a completely different place.

Inflation, after hitting a 40-year high, is still 50% higher than its 2% target. The economy is shrinking in per capita terms; it is smaller than it was six years ago, perhaps the first time that has ever happened in Canadian history. Canada is expected to have the worst OECD growth out of 40 countries for the next five and a half years and the next 35 years. It now takes 25 years to save up for a down payment for a mortgage in Toronto, and many people have had their existing mortgage extended to 90 years and 120 years, meaning their great-grandchildren will still be paying it off.

Houses in Canada now cost 50% more than in the United States. People can buy a castle in Sweden for a lower cost than for a two-bedroom home in Kitchener. Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world. Vancouver is the third-most expensive when comparing median income to median housing prices. This is the nightmare that would have been unimaginable to someone had they fallen into a coma and just awoken now. However, there is good news. They do not want to fall back into a coma, because the best is yet to come.

We now have a common-sense Conservative alternative that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We call on the Prime Minister to meet the premiers and talk to them about their desire to see the tax cut or eliminated altogether.

(1030) Let us grant relief to our people now until there can be a carbon tax election, where the people of this country will restore the common-sense consensus that will allow anyone from anywhere to do anything their birthright is, so that with hard work they can afford a good home and good food in a safe neighbourhood in the country we love, which is all of our homes. It is their home, my home and our home. Let us bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the leader of the official opposition 's speech is that it is often, whether it is inside the House or outside the House, factually incorrect. If they are axing anything, it is the facts, and the reality they portray is exceptionally misleading. For example, he talks about there being no immigration problems. He can tell that to the thousands of people who could not sponsor parents or he can tell that to the thousands of people who could not sponsor a spouse when he was actually in government, when immigration was a so-called no problem. Those are the actual facts.

He talked about the economy. It took Stephen Harper 10 years to create a million jobs. In less than eight years, we have doubled that. We have created over two million jobs. I am wondering if the member could be a bit more honest with the facts, whether it is here or outside of Ottawa.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to criticize the government's immigration policy because the Prime Minister has done it for me. He has said that the immigration system is out of control. Those are his words, reiterated by his immigration minister , both of them apparently blaming the preceding immigration minister for screwing the entire system up so badly that they allowed hundreds of thousands of students to come in to study at fake institutions that do not even exist. They are diploma mills, by the government's own description. Now those kids are abused, taken advantage of and forced to work 20 hours a week.

They are going home in body bags and forced to rent out half a bed for four hours a day, paying $700 a month. It is absolute chaos in our immigration system after eight years of the cocktail of total incompetence and radicalism that has defined the Prime Minister and his appallingly incompetent immigration and now housing minister , the member from Nova Scotia, who has given us 35 homeless encampments in the biggest city in his home province. That is the deplorable record that someone, having fallen into a coma eight years ago, would be shocked to wake up to.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple policy question. It should have a simple yes or no answer. The industrial carbon tax on big polluters has been doing the lion's share of emissions reduction. It is one of the most important climate policies. We all know where the Conservative leader stands on the consumer carbon tax, but he has avoided answering questions on the industrial carbon tax on big oil and gas. Could he please answer a simple yes or no question? Would he scrap the industrial carbon tax?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, there is no industrial carbon tax on the oil and gas sector, so the member should do her research before she asks questions like that. In Alberta the province has something called the TIER system, which is a provincially administered system. It stands for technology innovation and emissions reduction. It allows the large industrial players to invest in green initiatives to reduce their emissions at no cost to consumers. It is one of the reasons our oil and gas sector is the most advanced in the world.

What I propose is that we produce more of our clean Canadian oil and gas to displace the dirty dictators of the world. The real question is why the NDP wants to put good union workers in western Canada on the unemployment line, steal their jobs and send those jobs to foreign dictators around the world. We common-sense Conservatives would bring home those powerful paycheques for our people in this country.

(1035) [ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be spending another day in the Conservative Party's mythical carbon tax bubble. What a shame. However, I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition about the Liberal Party's abysmal record when it comes to housing. Its record is absolutely atrocious. I toured Quebec this past year. No one I talked to ever mentioned eliminating the carbon tax as a potential solution to the housing crisis. What people did tell us is that the cities are not the problem. The cities are not the ones causing delays. The federal government is the one holding up the work by launching program after program.

One possible solution that the Bloc Québécois will shortly be proposing is to have the federal government pay a single transfer for housing like it does for health care. That would reduce both delays and costs. Is the leader of the Conservative Party in favour of such a measure?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has supported every program that the Liberals have brought to the table. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this government's $500‑billion discretionary spending in the estimates. That money will be used to centralize and expand the government's powers. I want to clarify that I am not talking about spending on health care or seniors, which is already legislated and does not need to be voted on in the House. I am talking about spending on bureaucracy, consultants and large centralizing programs here in Ottawa. Ottawa needs to stop building a bigger bureaucracy.

Ottawa needs to shrink the bureaucracy and ensure there is more construction, less red tape and more houses. That is the Conservatives' common-sense policy.

[ English ]

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I offer my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for this motion, which calls on the Prime Minister to listen to the calls of the premiers to talk about the carbon tax. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, food bank usage is at record highs. Young people cannot afford to buy homes. Canadians cannot afford to put food on the table. Gas is over two dollars a litre in British Columbia. Despite the Liberal media misinformation, this is a direct result of the failed carbon tax and a $1.2-trillion national debt. In fact, that is the policy intention of this tax.

Canadians are hurting because of it, but the Prime Minister is not listening and does not care. Instead, he chose to hike the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. Worse, he plans to quadruple it by 2030, which is not sustainable. The premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick recently wrote to the Liberal chair of the finance committee asking for an opportunity to express their frustrations with the carbon tax and relay the concerns of their citizens who are struggling with rising costs. The Liberal chair, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville , ignored the premiers and refused to call a meeting.

I will take this opportunity to recognize and thank the brave chair of the government operations committee, my colleague, the member for Edmonton—West , who demonstrated principled leadership. He convened meetings at government operations so that the committee, and by extension Canadians, could hear from the premiers directly. Sadly, their concerns fell on deaf Liberal ears. The premiers of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and even the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have written to the Prime Minister , demanding a meeting to address carbon tax issues.

They understand an urgency that the Prime Minister ignores. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition also wrote to the Prime Minister , echoing the demands of the premiers and asking for an emergency meeting to hear from them directly. The Prime Minister's response was that he had a meeting with them in 2016. That is an absolutely pathetic response. None of the premiers he met with in 2016 is still in office today. Here is the reality. The NDP-Liberal carbon tax is a scam. It is nothing more than a tax plan disingenuously disguised as an environmental plan.

It is a behavioural science tool designed to control people’s behaviour, not to reduce emissions. In fact, it has not reduced emissions but continues to punish Canadian families for the crimes of buying groceries and filling up at the pumps. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed as much, saying that “most households will see a net loss”. To put it simply, the carbon tax is just like the Prime Minister : a failure and not worth the cost. Skyrocketing food prices have resulted in record food bank usage, including in my community of South Surrey—White Rock.

It was recently reported that more than 1,000 residents are now using the South Surrey food bank every week. That is a 35% increase. The Guru Nanak Food Bank, which operates in both Surrey and Delta, is not even included in the B.C. food bank statistics. It is now helping support three times more families than in 2020, when it opened. It even has a special

section for international students. Food banks in my community are also dealing with a significant shortage in donations, raising concerns that they may not be able to accommodate the increase in demand. This is heartbreaking, but it is the reality after eight years, despite what the government would have us believe. The carbon tax is not popular. In fact, there is only one provincial party that is enthusiastically embracing the carbon tax, and that’s the B.C. NDP.

Mainstreet Research recently asked British Columbians who they agreed with when it came to the carbon tax dispute between the federal Conservative leader and David Eby. Fifty-four per cent of respondents agreed with our leader and our position that the carbon tax hike should not have been spiked on April 1. Only 34% of respondents agreed with Premier David Eby.

(1040) British Columbians are being forced to choose among filling up their cars, heating their homes and feeding their families. Over 200,000 British Columbians are using the food bank every month, yet Premier Eby is happily implementing this federally mandated tax grab. On page 75 of the 2024 B.C. budget, it states, “Budget 2023 implemented annual increases to the tax to align with federal requirements.

B.C.’s carbon tax is currently at $65 per tonne, and will increase every April 1 by $15 per tonne until rates are equal to $170 per tonne in 2030.” He is telling us now that B.C.'s carbon tax will increase to comply with the Prime Minister 's mandate. According to the Vancouver Sun, B.C.'s carbon tax will rise by $9 billion over the next three years and only credit back $3.5 billion. Liberal math defies understanding. That is a net cost to British Columbians of five and a half billion dollars. This brings me back to the motion we are debating today.

Whether or not the NDP-Liberal government can admit it, we are in a carbon tax crisis. Despite the opposition of 70% of Canadians and seven out of 10 premiers, the Prime Minister refused to spike the hike April 1 and, instead, chose to inflict more pain on Canadians when they can least afford it. When it comes to emissions reductions, the carbon tax has been a demonstrable failure. COP ranks Canada 62nd out of 67 countries on climate performance. Once again, the NDP-Liberal government does not have an environmental plan; it has a tax plan.

Provinces need the flexibility to determine what is best in their jurisdictions. Conservatives believe in using technology that actually delivers results, such as by green-lighting green projects, exporting LNG to end Europe’s dependence on Russian oil, and capturing and storing carbon. We do not believe in virtue signalling and taxes that only inflict pain on struggling Canadian families. The reality is that the carbon tax crisis is the Prime Minister 's own making, and his response to the premiers is unacceptable. What is he afraid of?

Although we are separated by thousands of kilometres, our citizens are all facing the same grinding issues. For a Confederation such as ours to work, we need to bring people together; if there was ever a time to do so, it is now. The Prime Minister must call a meeting, sit down with the premiers and let Canadians into the conversation. After all, the Prime Minister said, “Government and its information must be open by default.” Now is his chance, his big moment. The Prime Minister needs to do the right thing.

He needs to show some courage, sit down with the premiers, whom he has never met with before, and end the carbon tax crisis that he created. He needs to do his job.

(1045) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know how I am going to vote on today's opposition day motion that we are talking about, at least peripherally. The discussion around carbon taxes always brings to mind, because it is a complex problem, the H.L. Mencken comment, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is clear, simple and wrong.” I could add, as an update, that it very rarely rhymes. I would love to see a discussion that is fact-based, listening to the experts, such as the 200 economists who say carbon pricing works, or to sit down with the premiers and listen to the science.

I recently, in this place, spoke of the record of the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who definitely worked with provinces, imposed additional costs to stop pollution and made actions count. We do not have a carbon tax crisis; we have a climate crisis. I would welcome an opportunity to listen to the scientific and economic experts and bring everyone together.

Could members of the official opposition confirm that, should this meeting with premiers take place, they would listen to the top experts on climate science at the meeting about the threat to our economy posed by wildfires, heat domes, floods and storms of all kinds that are driven by the climate crisis?

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay :

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome questions from a fellow British Columbian member of Parliament. It is hard to speculate on what a dialogue would look like if we have a Prime Minister who effectively says, “Well, I met with him in 2016.” He has not even opened the door yet to such a conference. Certainly, details can be arranged after that, but there has to be a willingness by the government to sit down and show courage where there is a national crisis and actually put bones onto solutions by talking to the first ministers in this country. This is a big country, but this Confederation was built on dialogue.

If there is no dialogue, there are no solutions. Talking to each other is always the way forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem that I anticipate in the debate coming from the Conservatives today is that they will axe the facts throughout. At the end of the day, I think it does a great disservice to Canadians. I put this out to the member across the way. I have had a difficult time trying to get a Conservative member of Parliament to actually debate this issue with me, whether in Ottawa or in Winnipeg at any public school. I would welcome any member of the Conservative caucus to debate me on this issue, on the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax, any day if they had the courage to do so.

However, I suspect not one of them will take me up on that. If the Conservative Party is so confident of its policy position, why is it scared to actually have a public debate on the issue?

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay :

Well, Mr. Speaker, that was incredible. The reason it is incredible is that the member is talking about people going to public schools in his riding, which he is probably afraid to lose in the next election, and talking about this issue. We want the first ministers of this country, the people elected by our citizens. There is only one taxpayer after all. We want them to get together and show leadership. Leadership starts with the Prime Minister calling a meeting. We will debate this any time.

My goodness, the Leader of the Opposition has been out at rallies, bringing in thousands of people right across the country, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, talking about this issue. Seventy per cent of Canadians and seven out of 10 premiers agree with us on this. Let us get the job done.

(1050) [ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of considerable climate change and have led to significant increases in the price of vegetables, grains and fruit in recent years. The whole point of the carbon tax is to lower greenhouse gas emissions. That is one thing. For another thing, Quebec decided to join the Western Climate Initiative, which is a kind of carbon exchange. California and British Columbia both participate. As a result, Quebec is unaffected by the carbon tax. Would our Conservative colleagues be willing to join Quebec and British Columbia in the carbon exchange?

It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep inflation in check, without monopolizing our time every day simply trying to reduce or eliminate a carbon tax that plays such a useful role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[ English ]

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay :

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we are aiming for co-operation and dialogue in this motion. We want to include the premiers of all provinces, including Quebec. Therefore, let us just get to the table, have the discussion, show leadership at both the provincial and national levels, and show how this Confederation can actually work at a time of crisis for Canadians right across the country.

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, it is great to be back in the House of Commons, although it is sad that we are debating the same tired argument that the Conservatives have been bringing forward for the last two years. It is clear that the Conservative war on facts, evidence and science continues, even since the Harper era. Now it is math they disagree with. The failed former leader of the Conservative Party from Regina—Qu'Appelle and the petro-puppet from Carleton are on this cover-up campaign with the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, who raised the price of gas on April 1 by more than the price on pollution.

By the way, that price increase did not include any type of rebate, so it is clear why the Conservatives are here and who they are here for. It is not for Canadians or to stand up for affordability; it is to play a role in the cover-up campaign for the Premier of Alberta and to defend the greedy corporate interests of big oil and gas giants, as they always have. Nothing changes with the Conservative Party, but things are changing with our climate. In fact, March 2024 was the hottest March ever on record. Guess what, Mr. Speaker: February had the highest temperature and was the hottest February ever on record.

January was the same. Actually, that has been the case for the last 10 consecutive months. Every single month has been a record-breaking month for temperature. The hottest year on record was 2023. Now, in 2024, it is only April and there are already wildfires burning. Last year, 5.7 million acres of Canadian forests burned down because of out-of-control wildfires, and the Conservative leader blamed it on arson, which we know is not the case. Climate change has dried our forests out and increased the severity of wildfires.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, even still, the Conservative caucus of climate change deniers is heckling over there. I know Conservatives do not believe in climate change, but Canadians do; they demand that we stand up, lower our emissions and take a leading role on fighting climate change around the world. If one does not believe in climate change, then one must believe in the amount of money these wildfires are costing Canadians. There was over $1.5 billion in economic losses last year just from wildfires and an incremental $700 million of insured losses.

That does not include drought, floods, hurricanes, extreme weather or hyperfocused precipitation, as we have seen across this country. Climate change is an existential threat to our economy, our livelihoods and our very lives, and the Conservatives want to ignore it. Who do they want to rely on for insight, for expertise and research? Our universities provide us with that insight. Last week, when 200 leading economists from across this country wrote an open letter in support of carbon pricing, a spokesperson for the Conservative leader , the petro-puppet from Carleton, called them “so-called ‘experts’”.

I am sorry, but these are people who earned their degrees. They went to university, did the research and got a Ph.D. They are experts, not so-called experts. They are leading researchers in the field. This is coming from a guy who has never earned an honest red cent in his life. He has never contributed a dollar to our economy. This is the only job he has ever had, here in the House of Commons. It is pathetic coming from somebody with no expertise. I would like to spend the rest of my time today reading into the record the open letter from the economists on the Canadian carbon pricing.

This is not political rhetoric, a bumper sticker or a slogan that looks good on a hoodie. We are getting facts and evidence, irrefutable mathematics, from our experts. Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time today with the member for Winnipeg North .

(1055) Ms. Elizabeth May :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that everyone in this place will forgive me for the interruption, but as a member of Parliament, I believe that my work here does earn an honest red cent. I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it is important for those of us here to have actually had jobs outside of politics, but he might want to rethink that, Mr. Speaker, and it is up to you to recommend on this.

The Deputy Speaker :

I appreciate the hon. member's intervention in this. I will remind hon. members to be judicious in the words they choose, especially when speaking on the floor of the House and talking about other members. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that under advisement. I will continue now to read the open letter from economists on Canadian carbon pricing.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, it would be great if I did not have to raise my voice and yell, but the Conservative members want to heckle, so I will continue to speak at a volume that will allow them to hear it. This open letter from economists on Canadian carbon pricing was signed by over 200 leading experts. These are people who are doing research on a regular basis to determine what facts and evidence should be included in the political discourse. The letter starts:

As economists from across Canada, we are concerned about the significant threats from climate change. We encourage governments to use economically sensible policies to reduce emissions at a low cost, address Canadians’ affordability concerns, maintain business competitiveness, and support Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Canada’s carbon-pricing policies do all those things.

The member for Carleton , the Conservative leader, might call them so-called experts, or he might even call them Liberals. That is not true, and that is not a fact. These are people who work in our universities, teach our students and conduct world-class research, and their facts and evidence ought to be read into the record. I am proud to do that today. These economists refute five claims.

The first Conservative claim is, “Carbon pricing won't reduce GHG emissions.” The open letter states: “What the evidence shows: Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches.” This was reiterated by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe just the other day, which is that they looked at other things, but they were all more expensive, so they are relying on the federal backstop program. Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches. The open letter continues:

Since federal carbon pricing took effect in 2019, Canada’s GHG emissions have fallen by almost 8 percent...the Canadian Climate Institute shows that federal and provincial carbon pricing, for industries and consumers, is expected to account for almost half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030.

That is basic economics and common sense. The letter further states, “Carbon pricing is the lowest cost approach because it gives each person and business [in our communities] the flexibility to choose the best way to reduce their carbon footprint. Other methods, such as direct regulations, tend to be more intrusive and inflexible, and cost more.” One of the reasons that Conservatives around the world in other countries rely on carbon pricing is that it is a market-based instrument considered widely as a Conservative approach to lowering emissions.

Conservative claim number two is, “Carbon pricing drives up the cost of living and is a major cause of inflation.” This is totally false. The letter states, “What the evidence shows: Canadian carbon pricing has a negligible impact on overall inflation.” The Conservatives can repeat their claims and their slogans all they want. That is not science. It is not evidence. It is not math. It is false.

The letter continues, “The sharp increase in inflation between 2021 and 2023 was caused by several factors, mainly related to the COVID-19 pandemic...and the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on commodity prices.” Just a few minutes ago, the petro-puppet from Carleton was standing in the House suggesting that the war in Ukraine did not cause any inflation in Canada. This is absolutely false. These forces are global, which is why the most advanced countries, whether they have a carbon price or not, experienced very similar inflation.

Carbon pricing has caused less than one-twentieth of Canada's inflation in the past two years. As well, 90% of the revenues generated are rebated back to households, which means that families receive more money in rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, particularly those with low and modest incomes.

The letter states, “Climate change, on the other hands, poses a real threat to Canadians' economic well-being...climate change will cost our economy at least $35 billion by 2030, and much more in future decades.” Again, this reiterates that this is an existential threat for Canadians and for our species on planet earth.

Conservative claim number three is, “It makes little sense to have both a carbon price and rebates.” The letter states, “The price-and-rebate approach provides an incentive to reduce carbon emissions...while maintaining most households’ overall purchasing power (due to the rebate).” Giving most back to families, through the Canada carbon rebate, carbon pricing revenues and rebates do not undermine the goal of the price. As well, there is still the incentive to reduce emissions. This is another Conservative claim debunked by expert economists.

Conservative claim number four is “Carbon pricing harms Canadian business competitiveness.” The letter states:

What the evidence shows: Canada’s carbon-pricing scheme is designed to help businesses reduce emissions at low cost, while competing in the emerging low-carbon global economy.

For large emitting sectors in most provinces—like oil, steel and cement—there is an “output-based” carbon pricing system. In effect, it means most large industries pay the carbon price only on the last 10-20 percent of their emissions. The lower-emitting firms pay less while higher-emitting firms pay more—creating a strong incentive for all firms to reduce emissions.

It is also important to highlight here that the vast majority of the oil and gas used in the agriculture sector, or 97% of it, is exempt from carbon pricing. Conservative claim number five is, “Carbon pricing isn't necessary.” The letter states, “Here the critics are actually right. Canada could abandon carbon pricing and still hit our climate targets by using other types of regulations and subsidies—but it would be much more costly to do so” for businesses, our economy and for consumers.

(1100) The letter continues, “Unfortunately, the most vocal opponents of carbon pricing are not offering any alternative policies to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals.” There are more than 200 Canadian economists who wrote a letter to the Conservative Party asking it to adjust some of its demands because they are not based on fact or evidence.

If there is even one Canadian economist who disagrees with these 200 economists, I would ask Conservative members to bring their facts and evidence to the House and read them into the record because Canadians demand policies that are based on facts, evidence, science and research, not bumper stickers, slogans and overly repeated political rhetoric.

The Deputy Speaker :

Before we go to questions and comments, I would remind members to use riding names when referring to others in the chamber. I know this has been brought up a number of times. We should say the right hon. Prime Minister , the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa . We want to make sure that we at least give people the correct title while speaking on the floor of this chamber.

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the member for Milton stated, “Building highways doesn't fight climate change.” Does the member still stand by his anti-road building statement?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, the member just brought up a tweet that I put out a couple of years ago.

An hon. member: Yes or no?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, he is yelling, “Yes or no?” right now at the top of his lungs. I believe that building highways is not a way to fight climate change. It is true. We should find ways to rely more on active transportation, public transit and trains. In my community, we require both-direction, all-day GO train service, so a lot of people use their cars when they do not have to. It is true that we need highways.

It is true that we need roads, and we need more of them in Canada with our growing population, but that does not mean that highways should be used as a wedge or recommendation to fight climate change. Conservatives want to say when we build more highways, we get less gridlock and less carbon emissions, and that is proven to be false. Yes, I stand by my statement.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, in the motion, it calls this a “carbon tax emergency”. We know the PBO and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have said that the carbon tax has about a 0.15% impact on inflation. It is about 15¢ on a $100 bag of groceries. The real emergency is the corporate greed emergency that is happening, the runaway corporate greed, but that is not being dealt with. We keep hearing the word “emergency”. We saw the Liberals host a summit on auto theft. That is not an emergency; it is a serious issue. An emergency is the 42,000 people who have died from a toxic overdose.

The government still has not convened a meeting with first ministers to deal with that. It is the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 19 and 59 in my home province of British Columbia. It is spreading across the country. There are skyrocketing deaths in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. However, the government has not even convened a summit on this crisis. When will the government convene first ministers to deal with the health emergency? We have lost as many people as we did to COVID-19. The government spent less than 1% in response to the toxic drug overdose crisis than it did to COVID-19.

When will it do that?

(1105) Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to serve with the member for Courtenay—Alberni in the House. We have had many meetings together on harm reduction, on the toxic drug overdose crisis in Canada and on ways to support people who are suffering from addictions. This morning, we announced that our government will be investing a further $500 million into youth mental health, which will include addictions supports. This is another occasion where we are faced with a war on evidence.

The Conservative Party wants to suggest that safe supply and providing people with the tools necessary to fight their addictions and live another day are causing the overdose crisis and the toxic drug supply, which is false. I want to commend the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his leadership on this and many other issues. I am always proud to work with him. I would be grateful for an opportunity to sit down to discuss how we can take further action on ending the opioid crisis in Canada.

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech from the member for Milton . He said he would give us facts. He did not give us facts. He gave us people's opinions, void of any facts. I am wondering if the member for Milton knows what the largest contributor to carbon is. Does he know it is the oceans? I am wondering whether the member for Milton knows what the levels of carbon in the air that we breathe are, what their targets are and what they need to be reduced to. Could the member for Milton provide us with some real facts?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden :

Mr. Speaker, that member is one of the most vociferous climate change deniers in the House of Commons. He stands up to deny Canadians', humans', impact on climate change. I read into the record the recommendations and the policy guidelines of people who do this work for a living. They are not their opinions. These are facts that have been uncovered by research and mathematics. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is approximately 350 parts per million. When it goes a lot higher than that, we have problems. Just like inside a greenhouse, plants consume carbon dioxide.

That is something that a lot of Conservatives and climate change deniers will say is plant food. No, carbon dioxide is not plant food. It is part of the photosynthetic process. The rhetoric that the oceans are responsible for more climate change than humans are is absolutely astonishing. It is that type of climate change denial, that type of fact-free rhetoric, that Canadians do not need in this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an issue that I am sure most Canadians will find the Conservative Party is in want of, which is an actual idea to deal with the price on pollution or the environment. The Conservatives, in fact, are like a fish out of water at times, flopping all over the place. It is hard to actually pin them down. I do not say that lightly. I would like to convey this for my Conservative friends across the way. Let us look back to 2015, when countries around the world went to Paris.

One consensus from the Paris conference was that the climate mattered, that there were initiatives that governments around the world should take to deal with the climate crisis. Canada was one of those countries to make that decision to bring in a carbon tax, carbon rebate process to support what had come out of the Paris conference. It was meant to be used as a national backstop. For example, the province of British Columbia and the province of Quebec do not have the carbon tax, carbon rebate policy.

We have seen some provinces back away from the program they had in favour of the national price on pollution or the carbon rebate and carbon tax. They did that, at least in good part, because they recognized the value of the national program. However, nothing prevents a province from going on its own and developing what the world is demanding, recognizing that we should be concerned about our environment. The price on pollution is a way to deal with that. The Conservatives have agreed with that. Let us look at Stephen Harper's policy platform in 2008.

Nineteen members of Parliament in the Conservative caucus today supported that. The iconic leader who they have pictures of supported a price on pollution. Let us fast forward. The last leader the Conservatives, the one the current leader replaced, Erin O'Toole, had a price on pollution as a part of his election platform, and 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election went around the country with that election platform, making it very clear there should be a price on pollution. There was nothing unique about that.

Every political party inside this chamber, the Greens, the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals and, at the time, the Conservatives, campaigned on a price on pollution. The Conservative Party, with its new shiny leader, talks about axing the tax. The reality is that Conservatives are axing the facts. That is what they are really doing. That is why I challenge the Conservatives, and it is not the first time. Is there a Conservative member of Parliament who is brave enough or has the courage to have that debate?

I would love to have a debate with any Conservative member of Parliament, whether it is at a public school in Ottawa or in Winnipeg. I look forward to one Conservative member of Parliament standing up today and saying that he or she will have that debate. Those members are going to have a tough time getting their leader to agree to have that public debate. They do not want the facts. They do not want people to understand what the Conservative agenda really is on the issue, and that should be of great concern. When the leader of the Conservative Party says that they want to axe the tax, it is so misleading.

The Conservative members of Parliament know that.

(1110) The net disposable income of 80% of the residents in Winnipeg North will go down as a direct result of this bumper-sticker policy that the Conservatives are trying to sell Canadians through deception and misinformation, and they do that consistently. We have to wonder where they get this stuff. An interesting

article came out, and I would like to bring the attention of members to it because it is really important for us to recognize, saying that the past week they got an extremely revealing look behind the curtains of the leader of the Conservative Party's baloney factory; that first of all, he was accepting major donations from oil sands executives, which is interesting to hear, who they knew were fighting hard against the rules and regulations to clean up their operations; but second, he was outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting. Let us understand who Mash consulting is.

Often I talk about the leader of the Conservative Party and his links to MAGA conservativism, the far right. Brian Mulroney said how they had amputated the progressive side of the Conservative Party. Kim Campbell is even harsher in her comments compared to Joe Clark, who says that the Conservative Party has left the progressive nature of its political heritage. Let me read right from it. It states that he is outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting. That is where the Conservatives are going.

It is a firm that has close ties to the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan, but also to companies like Shell and I understand, Canada Proud. Canadians should be concerned about what they see from today's Conservative Party, which has abandoned any sort of progressive heritage. It is not just me saying this; former Progressive Conservative prime ministers are saying what I am conveying here today. The Conservative Party reality is far, far right. It is on the extreme. The Conservatives are more concerned about catering to the People's Party's vote than they are to good, sound public policy.

Without any hesitation whatsoever, that is why I have no problem in challenging members of the Conservative Party to go to a public school in Ottawa or Winnipeg. I would love the opportunity to see a person from the media and a classroom full of students, and see how the Conservatives justify their irresponsible policy stand on the issue of a price on pollution. If they were to take me up on it, and I suspect they will not, it would be somewhat of an eye opener.

When the Conservatives say that the polls tell them they are right, they have been very successful in deceiving Canadians when it comes to the whole “axe the tax” campaign. They drop completely the rebate portion that increases the disposable incomes of 80% or more of Canadians and at the same time provides an incentive to decrease the use of fossil fuels. However, the Conservatives have no problem doing that. We saw that today when the leader of the Conservative Party stood and gave all sorts of false information. I follow immigration very closely.

I was the immigration critic and I can say that the Harper years were not good years for immigration, yet he thinks that those were the best years in Canadian history. He was talking about the jobs. In comparison with Stephen Harper's record, we have well over two million new jobs created in eight years compared to just a million jobs in 10 years. It is misinformation. The Conservatives are misleading constantly in social media and in statements in the House.

(1115) That is the Conservative Party today, that is the sort of behaviour. I would suggest that the Conservatives are not going to fool Canadians. When the time is here, Canadians will know, and the Conservatives will never be put into a government situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my friend from Manitoba, but if we look at what the business of supply is today, it is the opportunity to let the provinces make their cases about the strategies they have in place to counter excess carbon emissions. An NDP member earlier talked about toxic drug supply and getting the premiers together to speak about that and how significant and how important it was. I wonder if the member could come back to the actual topic of the day and talk about the significance of having the premiers get together to talk about issues of national importance.

(1120) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, the topic of the day is the price on pollution, the carbon rebate and the carbon tax. I can tell the member opposite that our Prime Minister has had more meetings with the premiers than Stephen Harper ever had. I can guarantee that fact. That member is from the province of Alberta. On April 1, Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, increased the gas tax by four cents a litre, which is more than the price on pollution, which was three cents a litre. I am wondering if the Alberta Conservative caucus has told the Premier of Alberta about the damage she is causing to Albertans.

I suspect not, because the Conservative Party today is so partisan that it turns a blind eye to anything that comes from the Conservative right to the detriment of Canadians.

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I just want to have some clarity on this. The member said that he would challenge any of the 118 Conservatives on the opposite side to a public debate in any forum in front of any audience, either back home or in Ottawa. Does that include the Leader of the Opposition ?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly clear, if any Conservative member, including the leader of the Conservative Party has the courage to debate and talk about this issue of the carbon tax and the carbon rebate, I would welcome the opportunity in any public school in Ottawa or in Winnipeg. If it were the leader of the Conservative Party and he had the courage to take me up on it, I would extend it to any public school in the country. However, I am sorry to tell members not to hold their breath, because the last thing the Conservatives want is to have an intelligent discussion on an issue that is so vitally important, and that is our environment and the carbon rebate.

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a terrible reality when so many Albertans and Canadians across the country are facing the affordability crisis. They cannot afford homes, or gas or food. What we have is as a solution from the Conservative Party to axe the carbon tax. That may sound really good for a lot of Canadians, but the reality is that it is hypocrisy. We have a premier in Alberta who raises the gas tax by four cents and has no rebate. On top of that, we have the Liberals and their carbon tax, which is three cents. The reality of all of this is that gas went up 20¢.

The remainder of that, over 11¢, is pure profit for those like “Richie” Rich Kruger, who continue to go off and “burn, baby, burn”, while we talk and debate about the three cents from the Liberals. We have to get serious in the House. We are in a climate crisis and we are in an affordability crisis, and the solutions of the Conservatives are hypocritical ones.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I cannot make this stuff up. We actually have Conservative members of Parliament going around the province of Alberta saying that they want to axe the tax. It was going to be a three-cents-a-litre increase on gas on April 1. They were going around the province saying they had to get rid of it. Their own Conservative premier increased it by four cents.

I suspect that we will not find very many news stories or social media hits coming from Conservative members of Parliament criticizing Danielle Smith and the Conservative Government of Alberta for increasing the price of gas by four cents a litre for Albertans. If I am wrong, members can please send me the link to their social media that says, as a member of Parliament, they are upset with the Premier of Alberta.

[ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of equity, diversity and inclusion, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière . The Conservatives have evolved. I am pleased to see that when I read their motion. It takes them time, because they do not evolve at the same rate as everyone else. There has, however, been some progress, because nowhere in the motion does it say that there is a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh carbon tax. I asked the member for Lévis—Lotbinière how many carbon taxes there were now. There is nothing in there that says that the carbon tax applies explicitly to Quebec. What they are asking, after a

preamble I will address because it is full of insinuations, not necessarily explicit inaccuracies, but insinuations, is that the federal, provincial and territorial governments sit down together. This is progress, because, for the first time, the Conservatives’ discourse includes an attempt at dialogue, and the level of demagoguery has been toned down a notch, although it is still there. Obviously, the

preamble is problematic because they talk about the increase in the carbon tax, suggesting that it might apply to Quebec. It does not apply to Quebec. In the

preamble, they talk about the carbon tax crisis and tell us that Canada now ranks 62nd out of 67 countries in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. “Canada” ranks 62nd out of 67 countries; Quebec is doing better. It is another way of telling Quebeckers and Canadians that this is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. It is another way of denying the fact that there is a connection between taxation and the environment. What the Conservatives forgot to say was that we ranked 62nd out of 67 countries, but that the 61 countries ahead of us have a higher carbon tax. I would have liked to see that in the motion’s

preamble, because there are a lot of carbon pricing systems. That is pertinent to the other provinces and the territories. It has nothing to do with Quebec. I am just saying that the

preamble is mediocre. Then we get to the body of the motion, where they say that we need to get to the bottom of things, where they say there needs to be a dialogue. Quebec, the nine other provinces, the territories and the Prime Minister should meet, the meeting should be transparent, public and fact-based, and everyone should be there. If they admit that there could be an amendment to correct the inaccuracies and remove the insinuations from the

preamble, and say that there should be a meeting, we cannot really oppose the motion if things are done properly. We did it for immigration targets. We asked that the federal government meet with Quebec and the other provinces. However, there were no lies in our

preamble. We asked for a meeting on targets, policies and health transfers, but the facts in the

preamble to the motion were true. The Conservatives seem to have moved on now, especially those from Quebec. They sounded like fools with all their questions about whether the carbon tax did or did not apply to Quebec. It took a while, but they learned. Education works. We are proud of ourselves and of our message. The meeting would make it possible to counteract the last lie that the Conservatives are spreading across English Canada. Now that they know that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, they are spreading the lie that Quebec is taking advantage of other Canadians.

The carbon tax would rise to $80 per metric tonne of carbon, while we in Quebec would only be paying $47. As a result, in addition to being a bunch of lazy freeloaders receiving equalization payments, Quebeckers would enjoy a free ride in the Canadian federation. The meeting would enable the Premier of Quebec, if he were to come here to Ottawa, to meet with the other premiers and explain that that is not true. Why? Because in Quebec, we have a cap-and-trade system. We do not regulate the price of pollution, but the amount of pollution.

The number of pollution allowances issued was established in advance until 2023, before the Liberal government came to power. It is a bit like the situation with child care centres: Ottawa copies what Quebec does, but perhaps not as well, or with less consensus in society and the other provinces. In Quebec’s system, the price fluctuates. If at some point energy-consuming or polluting industries want to set up shop in Quebec, the price will go up. If we invest in transition technologies, the price will go down. However, we know we are going to meet our targets, because they are integrated into the system.

It has nothing to do with the federal government. Quebec’s carbon market is tied to that of California, whose economy is larger than Canada’s. If there is someone the California government is not interested in listening to over coffee in the morning, it is the Prime Minister of Canada. They are not interested. California is doing what it is doing because Californians are innovative and forward looking. This system will enable us, by 2030, to reduce our emissions over 1990 levels by 37.5%. It is a system that works.

(1125) What is called the Western Climate Initiative is in effect. I did in fact say “Western”. We see that this could include Alberta, which already fits in with the system name. Oregon and Washington have decided to join. The doors are open. We could talk about this. Why are the other provinces not joining this system so that they too can benefit? The doors are wide open. The system was founded in 2007. The board of directors was made up of people from Quebec, California, Washington State and Nova Scotia. I think we know where that is.

Nova Scotia could explain to us why it decided to leave this system, through which it could have paid maybe $47 per metric tonne and focused on innovation and greener growth. That would be a good idea. It was also founded by the governors of Arizona and New Mexico. Arizona and New Mexico are not exactly known for their far-left thinking. Any idea who took

part in this system originally? It was Ontario. Ontario decided to voluntarily leave this system, under which it could have participated in a cap-and-trade system with California, Quebec, Oregon, Washington and other players who will be joining. Naturally, the Conservatives keep telling us that we in Canada are going it alone and that we alone are introducing carbon pricing, making regulations or imposing a structured policy that centres on innovation. In 2023, the World Bank counted 73 pricing systems in the world, which is five more than in 2022.

If the Conservatives had their way, it would be zero, but then again they are also in favour of abolishing the UN. There are 69 more systems than there were 20 years ago. There is a global trend. Some people are progressive and want things to move forward, while other people want us to go backwards. Why am I pointing out how many systems there are? The Conservatives are entitled to be against this. They can have a group dialogue about this. Some do not believe in climate change and others think that taxes are higher. That can be a discussion. However, the reality is very simple. Take Europe, for example.

The European Union has an emissions trading system. Obviously, Europe has major polluters, just like everywhere else. The current system gives these major polluters free allowances. They can pollute. That includes steel mills, aluminum plants and so on. That is the case in these systems, too. They accommodate major polluters as they transition. The system is not anti-industry. They are given allowances, but those allowances are capped. That leaves fewer allowances for other industries, and countries meet their targets. However, the European system is going to wind down.

Europe is not a small place; it is a huge economy. Europe announced that, in 2035, I believe, there will be compensation at the border. Countries and jurisdictions that decide not to do their

part in the fight against climate change will pay at the border. Canadian industries will pay. Industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will pay. Quebec industries will be dinged twice when these compensation systems are implemented—and they will be implemented. If Canada does not do its part, we will pay for those who do. What that means for Quebec is unjust treatment at the hands of provinces that have blinders on when it comes to Quebec. Guess what?

The Conservatives will once again claim that this is far-left nonsense, but I think we can all agree that the WTO is not made up of Marxist-Leninists from the Plateau Mont-Royal. The WTO has confirmed that these border adjustments comply with global trade rules. In 10 to 15 years' time, countries that do not contribute to the fight against climate change will be treated the way countries that profit from child labour are treated today. Canada will not be ready. For all these reasons, I think the

preamble could be removed through an amendment. We should always support dialogue. I think all these people need to have a meeting based on premises that are explicitly and implicitly honest.

(1130) [ 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 that the member from across the way has made. One of the things we should be highlighting is the fact that countries around the world make reference to the province of Ontario and how Ontario had the cap-and-trade system but ultimately opted out. From a personal perspective I think that was a backwards step, because there are many American states that have taken it upon themselves to actually put a price on pollution. The United States as a whole does not have a price on pollution; I guess that is fair to say.

However, many American states do, and I think that is something worth noting. In Canada, provinces also have the option; Quebec and B.C. are good examples. Could the hon. member just expand upon the importance of other jurisdictions?

(1135) [ Translation ]

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, we should not judge too harshly because the process is not linear. There are some provinces that joined the system and others that left it. There are some political vagaries. Now there may be a willingness to discuss these things to reintegrate them into the system. I think we need to be constructive. However, we have to be careful. The Conservative motion says that the first ministers must convene to discuss alternatives and better policies for fighting climate change.

The Liberal government sent the western provinces the message that they should take taxpayer dollars to put it into pipelines and to invest in carbon capture technologies, which will have absolutely no impact in the short term according to scientists. That is part of their solutions. Now that the Liberals have let the genie out of the bottle, they are having a hard time being seen as credible when it comes to alternatives. I think that if people in this government want to be part of the solution, they also need to refocus their speeches and stop putting taxpayer money into the pockets of the oil companies.

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I took the time to listen carefully to my colleague. I see a glimmer of common sense in him because it looks like he will be voting with the Conservatives on this motion. I want to come back to the carbon exchange. As he pointed out, it costs about $47 a tonne in Quebec. Unfortunately, the carbon tax in the other provinces is currently over $80. In that meeting, what would my colleague's reaction be if the federal Liberal government forced Quebec to increase the price of the carbon exchange so that all Canadians are on the same level, which would put Quebec at a disadvantage with all its experience in the carbon exchange?

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Where to begin, Mr. Speaker? It is as if he asked me what I would think if the federal government wanted to raise the price of IBM shares, if it wanted to lower the price of Nvidia shares, or if it wanted to go to the Chicago Board of Trade and dictate the price of nickel. The system does not work that way. There are a number of permits, and people exchange them. If the member for Lévis-Lotbinière is able to do that, I will have him manage my portfolio, and I will have a darn good retirement.

[ English ]

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , I appreciate that the member suggests there need to be alternatives for addressing climate change. I know that there is a thing called the output-based pricing system, which is used to protect major emitters from paying full carbon pricing. Depending on the industry and activity, 80% to 90% are actually exempt from carbon pricing. I wonder whether the member agrees that what we need to discuss in terms of alternatives is to remove such exemptions so the major emitters are actually paying the full price of carbon pricing.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about the permit exchange system is that we are able to meet our targets while still acknowledging the facts. I do. It is a reality. Some big companies produce and pollute, and it is hard for them to find alternative technology in the very short term. Those companies may end up polluting elsewhere. They are given certain exemptions for a period of time, while they find these technologies. Meanwhile, we will continue to put a cap on overall emissions levels. However, these exemptions need to be removed. That is what the European Union is going to do, and I agree with that.

Most permit exchange regimes will replace exemptions with border offsets that will cost Canadian industries dearly. Yes, exemptions must be phased out at a time when emissions are being reduced.

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering for some time what is behind the Conservatives' fixation on the carbon tax. I am a well-meaning person. I am known for it in my caucus. In fact, the MP for Mirabel constantly says that I am the Mother Teresa of the Bloc Québécois caucus. I have tried to understand what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to tell us. I often find him hard to follow. He sometimes makes statements we are not sure we understand. He says he wants to fix the budget. I wonder if he wants to do that with a screwdriver and a hammer. I have trouble following him sometimes.

He says the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption. Is there any corruption that is worth experiencing? I often wonder. I have heard the leader of the official opposition remark on numerous occasions that electricians can capture lightning and run it through a wire to light this very room. When I put that end to end, I ask myself whether there is something missing here that would prompt the leader of the official opposition to talk to us about a carbon tax without having a solid grasp of the ins and outs.

Back to what I was saying in my introduction: I am a well-intentioned person and I am going to try to unpack this for those listening to us. I have the key. I have figured out how to decipher the Conservative leader's thinking and to determine his true intentions. To figure this out, it may be best to do what one does with a teenager. When I wanted to understand my son when he was a teen, I looked at what kind of clothes he was wearing. I used clothing psychology. I could see whether he liked such or such a rock band or such or such a trend. He once wore, to my great dismay, a Québec Solidaire shirt.

I could figure things out by how my son dressed. Does anyone remember that “I love oil & gas” shirt? For the person wearing it, that was a cry from the heart. When someone uses a shirt to express their love for an economic sector, I mean, that is really something. That is an all-consuming passion. The Conservatives went from “I love oil & gas” to “Axe the Tax”. How come? It is because if someone says today that they adore oil and gas at a time of climate change, they may look, well, crazy. That is just my opinion, though, and I am not judging anyone.

If, on the other hand, someone says it is not oil and gas that they love, but that they want to defend low-income earners by eliminating a tax, well, that may end up resonating with certain people who do not take the time to unpack what is being said. What I am hoping to do here in the House is deconstruct the Conservatives' rhetoric. I get the impression that the Leader of the Opposition is not actually defending the purchasing power of families and low-income earners, but rather an ideology that denies climate change and supports the oil and gas sector without reservation.

A look at the facts will be the real test. So let us look at the facts. The direct and indirect impact of the carbon tax on inflation is minimal, if not virtually nil. I have some numbers from the Bank of Canada. Say there is a $15 increase. The Bank of Canada is telling us that the direct impact on inflation will be 0.15%. This 0.15%, when transposed to $1,000, means that for every $1,000 a family spends, $1.50 is spent on the carbon tax. That $1.50 applies only to provinces that have a carbon tax. It does not apply to Quebec. I am not the one saying that; it is the Bank of Canada.

Saying that made the Conservatives sound a bit silly. Why would anyone have a nervous breakdown or start printing T-shirts over $1.50 on every $1,000? That is a bit ridiculous. There is no justification for what the leader of the official opposition was saying. According to him, people are lining up in front of food banks to ask for medical assistance in dying because the carbon tax increased by $1.50 on every $1,000. It seems a little crazy. The Conservatives wanted to talk about indirect impacts. They were clever.

The Bank of Canada was unwilling to calculate indirect impacts because it said that they are insignificant, that they amount to almost nothing. Trevor Tombe, an economics professor, did the math. It is funny.

(1140) Let us take a closer look at that. He calculated it for Alberta and Ontario, and he came up with some rather surprising figures. That means the indirect impact of the carbon tax would cost about 0.18% in Alberta and 0.20% in Ontario. If we follow that logic, the Conservatives have been shouting for 18 months about 30¢ to 50¢ per $1,000. Is it worth focusing all opposition days on 30¢ to 50¢ per $1,000? Is that why low-income earners are having a hard time finding housing, clothing and food? Is that causing out-of-control inflation?

I do not know, but unless they can prove that the opposite is true, I will have a hard time believing the Conservatives. We must always remember that the carbon tax does not apply directly to Quebec. Professor Tombe found the impact so insignificant that he did not want to calculate it for Quebec. He thought 30¢ to 50¢ was too insignificant. Let us extrapolate by saying that it affects Quebec by about 0.02% or 0.03%. That would mean that, for every $1,000, the impact of the carbon tax that the Conservatives keep harping on about would cost a family an extra 25¢.

This calculation was made by an economics professor who has the support of many of his colleagues. It is not like some members of Parliament who were brandishing a bill with the words “carbon tax” on it and a calculation scribbled on the back by a gas producer. That inspired me to do something. It occurred to me that it would be very interesting to calculate the economic support given to the oil and gas sector. In the last budget alone, over the next 10 years, nearly $83 billion will be redirected to the oil and gas sector in tax credits. That is huge. It is appalling.

That is not counting the pipeline, which we paid $34 billion for. I would like to do the math and tell low-income earners how much tax money they have given to the oil and gas sector. I think that, for every $1,000, we will be a long way from 25¢. It will be much higher. I said at the outset that I am always well-intentioned. That is true. I am a bit like the Mother Teresa of the Bloc Québécois. I wanted to deconstruct what the Conservatives are saying. Now I want to help them. If they want to work with the premiers, good for them. That is a good idea. We in the Bloc Québécois would be prepared to get on board.

That is why I would be prepared to move an amendment to this motion to have other provinces join the carbon exchange. We can get rid of the carbon tax, and the best way to get rid of it is to propose carbon pricing ourselves. Why not join Quebec? Our arms are open. Like Mother Teresa, we are here to welcome provinces that want to free themselves from the carbon tax while putting a price on the carbon exchange. I therefore move the following amendment: that the motion be amended by: (

a) replacing the words “tax emergency” with the word “pricing”; (

b) replacing the words “that this meeting address” with the word “and,”; and (

c) deleting paragraphs (a), (

b) and (c). I cannot be more well-intentioned than that.

(1145) The Deputy Speaker :

I must inform the hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion can only be proposed with the consent of the mover. In the event that he is not present, the House leader, deputy House leader, whip or deputy whip of the mover's party may give or refuse consent in the mover's place. [ English ] Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I am asking the acting whip if he consents to the amendment being moved.

Mr. Len Webber :

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we reject the amendment.

The Deputy Speaker :

There is no consent. [ Translation ] Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

[ English ]

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I reflected on as I was listening to the member and his colleague who spoke before him was that the one constituency where the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to gain a lot of traction in terms of his position on a price on pollution is Quebec. I think that is because Quebec has had a price on pollution for many years, understands the importance of it and understands how the mechanics of it work. However, what I cannot understand is how Conservatives, in particular, Conservatives from Quebec, keep talking about this price on pollution and trying to demonize the policy.

They must know that Quebeckers believe in pricing pollution, whether it be through a carbon tax or through cap and trade. What does the member think about this? Can he wrap his head around why Quebec Conservative MPs keep going on about this, even though they know that Quebeckers, by and large, do not support what they are saying?

(1150) [ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard :

Mr. Speaker, I think what is funniest in the question raised by my colleague is the reaction by the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis , who brandished a sheet of paper to criticize the Quebec carbon exchange when she herself was in government when this exchange was implemented. Basically, one could say that she acts one way in Quebec City, and another way in Ottawa. That is precisely why the Conservative Party is not doing better in Quebec, because they often talk out of both sides of their mouth. I would cite the example Quebec's state secularism act.

We never heard the leader of the official opposition say he would respect Quebec's choice. That is not good for him. The same applies to Bill 96, which places French above all other languages in Quebec. We heard the leader of the official opposition say he would challenge that. I have never heard the leader of the official opposition say he agreed with special status for Quebec. Maybe that explains why the Conservative Party is so slow to catch on in Quebec.

[ English ]

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the principal reasons we oppose this is that the cost of this has a ripple-down impact. For the Town of Shaunavon back home, for example, with the carbon tax increase, it is going to cost the town $78,000. In order for the municipality to cover that off, it would have to raise taxes on ratepayers by at least 8% or 9%. There it is, another example of how the carbon tax continues to pile onto ratepayers more than just at the pumps, which is where the Bloc seems to think it only applies. I want to know what the member thinks about that.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard :

Mr. Speaker, economists tell us these indirect costs are minimal. Nevertheless, on the subject of indirect costs, we could talk about Alberta's oil royalties. These costs far outstrip those associated with the carbon tax. Why do I never hear my colleagues talk to us about that? We could also talk about the indecent amount of public money funnelled to oil companies, money that could help us provide support for our cities and programming that would be far more beneficial for the population than having us simply give money to an economic sector that is making record profits.

We could talk about the major oil companies' refining margins going up—these gluttonous companies that are making record profits. We could talk about all that, but unfortunately the Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil industry prevents them from thinking in these terms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Jonquière. I think that the Conservative motion gives us a good opportunity to explain to Canadians what is really happening with the climate crisis. The reality is that, when a provincial Conservative premier testified in committee, he gave the government good arguments in favour of the carbon tax. In fact, the testimony the Conservative premiers gave as to why they are against carbon pricing did not make any sense. Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite those who are opposed to policies that work to come and explain why they are in favour of doing nothing.

(1155) Mr. Mario Simard :

Mr. Speaker, the reasons why the Conservatives do not want to take action on climate change are very simple. The only reason is the oil industry. Unfortunately, what will that accomplish in the long term? Since everyone is putting a price on carbon, Quebec's competitiveness in its trade with Europe and the United States will be affected because the Conservatives and the Liberals have decided that the economic sector they are going to focus on is the Canadian oil and gas industry. The only solution for us is independence.

Privilege Advance Disclosure of Budget Measures Privilege

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks, the federal government has been parading all over Canada, announcing programs of all kinds and budgetary envelopes in advance, disclosing bits and pieces of the budgetary measures that will be part of the budget to be tabled on April 16. On a number of occasions, nearly four weeks before the tabling of the budget, the media reported figures shared by cabinet members and the Prime Minister , meaning that some of the financial initiatives that will be included in the finance minister 's budget were known in advance.

It is disconcerting that the government would violate the principle of secrecy as it relates to fiscal matters, a principle that should be upheld by any responsible and trustworthy government. Despite this parliamentary tradition and what, in our opinion, the principles of good governance call for, the federal government is prematurely disclosing budget items that are part of a budget plan, a projection for the coming years. These announcements, taken out of context, are preventing the opposition from doing its job properly.

Members are learning in dribs and drabs, in isolation, what the next Liberal budget will consist of. Starting on March 25, ministers began announcing budgetary measures for housing, for the national child care network, for the national pharmacare program regarding oral contraceptives and certain diabetes medications, for the new national school meals program, for the development of artificial intelligence, for strengthening national defence and for mental health.

In short, over the two-week parliamentary recess, a whole bunch of pre-budget announcements were made, a pre-election striptease of sorts, according to an April 3

article in La Presse. According to Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice , budget secrecy is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, and straying from this principle can have a negative impact on business or on the stock market, potentially causing irrevocable harm to some individuals or institutions and unduly benefiting others.

Members will recall that, before the content of the budget that the Minister of Finance intends to table is made public, finance officials usually hold an in camera information session for members and journalists, to preserve the necessary secrecy and to allow members to read the government's budget measures so that they can then debate them with full knowledge of the facts. The principle of secrecy in relation to fiscal matters is a fundamental principle commonly recognized in a parliamentary democracy and one that should undoubtedly be a matter of consensus in the government and among cabinet members.

It is disconcerting that the government itself prematurely disclosed significant budget items without assessing the potential impact of that decision. There was actually a time in 1989 when, to protect this parliamentary principle, then Prime Minister Mulroney had a journalist criminally charged with stealing confidential information and disclosing it before the budget was tabled. The finance minister at the time, Michael Wilson, decided to present his budget early in order to safeguard the principle of budget secrecy.

What is most worrying is that the Liberal government went ahead with this, ignoring the tradition of a parliamentary practice designed to prevent insider trading and allow parliamentarians to read the budget ahead of time, the better to comment on it. By announcing its budget to the media in bits and pieces, the federal government is being irresponsible toward all members and particularly toward the opposition parties, which are responsible for keeping an eye on the government's policies.

To disclose certain measures that the government believes will be popular, without allowing parliamentarians and Canadians an opportunity to see the government's entire budget policy, is a ploy that significantly affects the opposition parties' ability to take an informed position and hold the government to account with full knowledge of the facts.

Consequently, we believe that the members of the opposition parties have been obstructed in fulfilling their parliamentary duties, given that they were unable to take an informed position based on all the necessary budget information or to properly inform voters about the budget measures that were announced and their impact or repercussions.

(1200) These budget announcements could give financial advantages to certain experts in the field, which could be considered insider trading. That is a fundamental issue for the Speaker's office to address. In addition, it is important to ensure that the premature disclosure of budget measures does not violate the privilege of members of Parliament, who have been impeded in the performance of their duties, leaving them unable to represent and defend the interests of their constituents with full knowledge of the facts.

It will also be important to check whether the premature disclosure had the effect of misleading the public about the budget and, by the same token, members of Parliament. According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 116, misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House. That is why, if the Chair finds that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

The Deputy Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. We will take a close look. The hon. whip for the New Democratic Party.

[ English ]

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the New Democratic Party may come back with some comments on this in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, my comment is similar to the one made by my NDP colleague; if you would allow us the opportunity to do the same, it would be appreciated.

[ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague from the Bloc Québécois for this motion and this explanation. The Green Party will also want to submit its point of view at a later time.

[ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting Business of Supply Motion

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Victoria . It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak, but I am deeply ashamed at the ignorance and failure of the Parliament of Canada and Canada's politicians from the provincial level up to deal with the greatest crisis we, as a civilization and people, have ever faced. I say that because wildfire season is officially under way in British Columbia. It began in Alberta in February, when northern Alberta was bringing back its firefighting crews. In northern Ontario, our firefighting crews are getting ready. I am 61 years old.

Some people might say I never grew up, and that is fair, but one thing in all my 61 years is that I always felt so much excitement every single spring because I thought of summer. This year when I talk with people about summer, they talk about fire season. This is the planet we are giving to our children. As a 61-year-old white guy with grey hair, I expect young people to look at us and ask what we did when the crisis came. We know that the Conservatives ridiculed, laughed and snorted every time we talked about the climate crisis.

However, climate crisis deniers are not just the ones who troll about it and ridicule and try to deny the science. We see other forms of climate denial, such as thinking that if one puts out enough press releases, somehow the planet will get better, or that big oil will continue to be allowed to destroy the planet but that somehow if we just keep giving it money it will somehow find a way to make increasing fossil fuel production net-zero, and we will all be better off. We note that the Liberal government underspent by $15 billion on climate commitments.

In the face of a climate catastrophe, the press releases went out. The money was promised but it was not spent. I mention this because, in order to bring a bit of reality to the conversation today, I want to bring a few facts about what is happening in the outside world. This past month, Antarctica posted the single-biggest increase that has ever been recorded on the planet, a 38.5°C jump. A glaciologist, Professor Martin Siegert, stated that no one ever thought anything like this could ever happen: “It is extraordinary and a real concern.

We are now having to wrestle with something that is completely unprecedented.” Another scientist has called it “simply “mind-boggling”. Furthermore, what we are seeing in the Atlantic over just the last 14 months are the highest temperatures ever recorded. Of course people in the climate denial world will say that it is going to be life as normal; it will just be a little hotter and it will just be a little different.

It is the problem of Lucretius, which is that nobody can anticipate a problem bigger than what they have seen in their lifetime, so we have no capacity to recognize the damage and the ongoing planetary breakdown that is happening. In 2023, there was the loss of global tree cover in the areas outside of the tropics like Brazil, where the trees are being hacked down. The fact is that Canada was responsible for the largest tree cover loss recorded, with a 24% loss in a single year. That is from our burning forests.

I would think that the Conservatives would have thought it would be great to bring all our parliamentarians and provincial leaders together to talk about solutions to the crisis, but that is not what they care about. This is about a “gotcha” moment. There are a couple of things in the Conservative motion I am kind of interested in, but some of it I just find ridiculous. If this were going to be about “the ongoing carbon tax crisis and the financial burden it places on Canadians”, that would show leadership. It would show vision.

It would show we are being adults and we care about our kids, but no, Conservatives do not want to talk about that. They are going to let our kids burn. Then it is being said that we are going to bring our premiers in to talk about options of opting out of the carbon tax. Are we going to do that with the Doug Ford grifter government? Ontario was not paying the carbon tax until Doug Ford said, “Hey, you know what?

We're going to get rid of cap and trade and then make every ordinary Ontarian pay a carbon tax.” Then he then turned around and asked, “Whoa, how come we have this carbon tax?” He said it was because of the bad Liberal government.

(1205) Do we seriously think that we are going to let a grifter such as Doug Ford come in and talk about how to deal with the climate crisis? This is a guy who, as soon as he was elected, went and ripped up all the EV charging stations and then realized, “Oh my God, Ontario wants to be an automotive superpower with EV. Someone is going to have to build those EV charging stations.” Are we going to invite Danielle Smith, the conspiracy queen-in-chief? Alberta had a carbon tax. It was a made-in-Alberta solution.

The NDP Alberta solution made a lot more sense than the Liberal solution ever did, because it was about taking money from pollution and reinvesting in business and in alternatives. The Notley government said that they needed to reduce emissions in Alberta. They wanted to get it down by, I think, 30 million tonnes by 2030, and the money from pollution was going to be reinvested. Even some of those big oil companies got backhanders on that if they were willing to commit to clean energy and alternatives.

However, Danielle Smith came and ripped all that up, and then she kicked out $66 billion in clean energy projects strictly for ideology. There is no place on the planet where we can get more clean energy projects off the ground at the drop of a hat than in Alberta, but she did not want any of that. What do we have in Alberta now? Alberta has rolling blackouts in April. This is Canada's energy superpower, and she cannot even keep the power on. This is a failed-state approach.

The other thing is that Alberta is suffering a severe drought from the climate catastrophe, but we have not seen a single Conservative from Saskatchewan or Alberta get up and talk about how they are actually burning the province. Now they are saying that maybe they will get themselves this Athabasca pipeline to take water out of the already suffering, damaged Athabasca water system; however, that is not going to be shipped down to southern Alberta, because it is needed by big oil. The issue here, and this is my problem with the Liberal carbon levy, is that the carbon tax was always a market solution.

Therefore, we did not actually penalize the people who were burning our planet and knew they were doing it. I cannot go back and explain to working-class Joe back home that “Hey, you pay the money, then you get more back.” He will ask, “So, what does it do?” That is a good question. I will agree with the Conservatives on their motion that Canada is now 62nd out of 67 countries on the climate change performance index, but what they do not say is that the reason Canada is at the back of the pack is that we have never targeted those who are causing the emission increases.

The oil and gas sector never had any intention of lowering emissions; it never even tried. The intensity of creating oil in Canada today is higher than it was in 1990. When those in the sector talk about carbon capture and want us to give them billions for that, it is not to take it out of the atmosphere but so they can pump out more oil; it is about more fossil fuels. Alberta is responsible for close to 40% of Canada's emissions. Where does that come from? Is the average Albertan any more wasteful than the average Canadian anywhere else?

No, it is coming out of one sector; that sector has not been doing its job, and now our planet is on fire. However, we do not see any willingness from the Liberals to actually take this on, and the Conservatives will take on anything except the fact that our planet is on fire and that we are at peak carbon. The fact is that the emissions that are now being registered coming out of the oil sands are 6,000 times higher than registered. I come from mining country; if a mine was pumping emissions into the local river that were 6,000 times higher than allowed, there would be charges and arrests.

If we were sold a product that had 6,000 times more risk to human health, something would be done. However, in Alberta, they have the Alberta Energy Regulator, which is basically an extension of Richie Rich Kruger and probably has an office down the hall. Why am I going at them so hard? It is because they knew all along. They knew in the late 1950s of the simple science that increased carbon will create a situation where we will get greenhouse gas emissions.

(1210) The American Petroleum Institute did a study in 1982 that plotted out the timelines of what was going to be a slow-moving disaster. The study said that significant temperature changes were certain to occur by the year 2000, and this would lead to the eventual collapse of the Antarctic ice shelf—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I am sure the hon. member will be able to add to his remarks during questions and comments. The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the member's comments just exemplify how out of touch both the NDP and the Liberals are with Canadians. People are struggling in our communities. I went door to door on the weekend in an area that I did not do that well in during the last election. The comment I was hearing from people is that they are ready to axe the tax. The tax is not having any impact except for taking money to pay for Canadians' needs out of their pocketbooks. Does the hon. member recognize that what the NDP, Liberals and Bloc are supporting is a tax plan and not a climate plan?

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, can I just get a clarification? The member knocked on people's doors in British Columbia? The member was part of a government that brought in a provincial carbon tax. The member will not tell the truth when he is talking to people. He is going to axe the facts. People in B.C. are not paying a federal carbon tax. How dumb does he think his constituents are? How dumb does he think people are if he goes door to door with such blatant misinformation? This is a guy who brought in a carbon tax, who is blaming a government for a carbon tax that British Columbians are not paying.

By the way, while B.C. burns, this is what we have to deal with in the climate-denying world of the Conservatives.

(1215) Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, a new champion of carbon pricing just recently emerged. It is none other than Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, in a video from 2021 that recently resurfaced. She said, “I do my family's taxes, so I know we got $808.50.... When I go back and look at what I spent...in carbon taxes, because I was working from home, I wasn't commuting, my gas bills were way down, and even the amount...that I paid on my home heating, because we're principally natural gas where I live, I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer.

I think a lot of people would be of the view that, if you're going to implement some kind of carbon or revenue-neutral carbon pricing, that is probably not a bad way of doing it.” Those are not my words. Those are Danielle Smith's words from 2021. Can the member for Timmins—James Bay explain to the House why he thinks Danielle Smith has done a complete about-face on this issue?

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I just want to say I would be careful in believing anything Danielle Smith said. They want to bring her to have a premiers' conference. This is the woman who said cigarette smoking was good for people. No wonder she thinks burning the planet is good for us too, while Alberta dies in drought and she cannot keep the power on. Would we have Danielle Smith, the conspiracy queen of North America, come and talk about carbon and the carbon crisis? My God, it is bad enough for my poor friends in Alberta.

They cannot even keep the lights on in the energy superpower province, because she has chased out all the clean energy. She believes in smoking. I cannot even keep track of where Danielle Smith goes on a given day with the conspiracy claims she makes.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with a brief question.

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to be brief when the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is a voice of conscience in this place. He is the only person in days, weeks, maybe months, besides perhaps myself and the hon. member for Victoria , who speaks to the fact that the climate crisis threatens the future of our children, our grandchildren and civilization itself. It is in our hands to make a difference early. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is right. The government underspent by $15 billion on climate action and overspent by an obscene $34 billion to build the Trans Mountain pipeline that we do not want.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, we gave $31 billion to big oil, so companies could take unrefined bitumen; they would not even bother to process it in Canada. It is the dirtiest product on the planet, and we are going to have the taxpayers pay to ship it. Meanwhile, the Conservatives cheer it on and the Liberals say it is going to be good because they will somehow lower our emissions. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels without killing the future of our children. Those are the facts.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives just said that Canada does not have an industrial carbon price. He is either ignorant about carbon tax policy or intentionally misleading the public. He should know that Canada's industrial carbon pricing system exists. The federal carbon pricing benchmark exists, and it is critically important because it sets expectations for how provincial and territorial governments are covering fuels and large emitters, as well as how