:
Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to extend my congratulations to you on your new position. I have always had an incredible amount of respect for you, ever since the first time I entered the House in 2015. You, being the dean of the House, resided over, and have since resided over, all elections of the Speaker. It is nice to see you filling this role. We greatly appreciate you doing that during the time of need of the House.
I will pick up where I left off in my speech prior to question period. I was pointing out what I saw as the rich hypocrisy that tended to come from the other side of the House when it came to pricing pollution. As I indicated during my speech, all members of the Conservative caucus, who sit here today, and many of those from before them, ran on pricing pollution, some dating back to Stephen Harper's time.
What I find to be even richer than that is the fact that some members of the House, in particular the member for , were part of a government that supported pricing pollution and introduced pricing pollution. That member went on to give a long speech in the British Columbia legislature about how effective pricing pollution was and how well it was working in British Columbia.
I am sure the member felt quite confident when he ran in the 2021 election on the plan that Erin O'Toole had put forward at the time. I am sure he thought it was the right plan, because he had seen this successfully work in British Columbia. Now he is with a new who does not feel the same way, and he has suddenly changed his tune. Indeed, he rose in the House earlier today and asked a question specifically on this topic, as though he never made those comments or took those positions in the past.
I find it extremely difficult to give any credibility on this issue to the Conservatives. They tend to do exactly what the member for was saying earlier, which is to look for any opportunity to exploit individuals, in particular individual hardships, in order to utilize that for some kind of political gain. We continually see that.
I would like to touch on my comments with regard to the Atlantic accord. What we do know is that both in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland, the premiers have been calling on the government to install legislation, to give the opportunity for Atlantic Canada to benefit tremendously, economically and environmentally, but in particular economically, on a new opportunity to produce wind energy in Atlantic Canada, offshore. This is where the future is going.
People can put their head in the sand and pretend that the future still remains in oil and gas. They can die by that sword by insisting that it is the only option and the only form of energy that will ever be required, or they can get with the times, open their eyes and see what is going on throughout the world, see what is going on just in our country alone with respect to that transition.
Even if, as Conservatives have said many times in the past, they are not in favour of that Atlantic accord, even if they still believe that oil and gas is the only way to go, why would they not be in favour of unlocking the opportunities of Atlantic Canada to potentially prosper off a new form of energy? We would think that Conservatives would at least say they do not believe it will ever happen but we should go ahead and try. They will not even do that.
That is how beholden they are to oil and gas, generally speaking, and to the industries that are profiting billions of dollars every year. For some reason, the Conservatives are absolutely relentless in their quest to shutter any opportunity of any kind of new technology that does not involve the extraction of fossil fuels from the ground. I find that extremely troubling.
I always thought that eventually the Conservatives would come around, that eventually they would say that since 10 out of every 100 cars in Canada being sold are electric cars now, it is probably going in that direction. However, it seems as though the Conservatives, at every possible opportunity, absolutely claw onto and grasp at every last little straw in an attempt to hold onto the fossil fuel industry, as though it is the only thing here for their survival.
:
Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to inform you that I am splitting my time with my very eloquent and passionate advocate and colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable.
It was all a scam. The carbon tax was sold when a bumper sticker should have been slapped on that said, “Not as advertised”.
The Liberals sold it a few ways. They said that more Canadians would get more back into their pockets with these phony rebates than what they would have to pay into it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that was false and made it very clear in his report that Canadians would pay more into this scam than what they would get back in these phony rebates.
The Liberals also said they would solve climate change and make everything better, that they would make emissions come down. That was proven false by their own Parliamentary Budget Officer, as emissions keep going up and they have not hit a single emissions reduction target they set for themselves. This is why they should have thrown on a bumper sticker that said, “Not as advertised”. This was a scam from day one and it is coming to light now.
The carbon taxes and the carbon tax scam are also very discriminatory because every province feels them differently and gets charged differently. For Albertans, it is yet another attack on our province by the . Not only has he repeatedly kicked Albertans down, he has also made sure that Alberta does not again become the prosperous province it used to be. By introducing Bill , supported by the NDP, the Liberals and NDP made sure that no good pipeline projects would be able to be completed in this country. Pipelines are great way to lower emissions and not have our products transported on trains and trucks. They are safer, more secure and will bring down emissions. They can bring home not only more powerful paycheques for Canadians, but jobs, prosperity and a better economy.
We can see that the world today wants clean, responsible, low-carbon Canadian energy, but the policies and radical left ideology of the Liberal-NDP government are not allowing it. It has repeatedly blocked projects. What is the result of that? We see dictatorships around the world making profits. We see emissions going up. As an example, Germany's chancellor came to Canada within the last year literally asking for our liquid natural gas and was willing to take it immediately. The had more than 15 good LNG projects on his desk when he became Prime Minister. Not one has been completed yet. When he turned Germany's chancellor away, the chancellor went to Qatar, which has fewer human rights and environmental regulations than Canada. He bought LNG there, when he could have got it from Canada, which has the highest human rights and environmental standards when it comes to producing clean, responsible energy.
What is the result of all of this? Last winter we saw heating costs double. We heard stories of seniors having to turn down the heat in their homes and literally making do with blankets during the wintertime because, after eight years of the irresponsible Liberal-NDP government, things are way more expensive than they have ever been before. These costs have driven up everything and have made it so that 1.5 million Canadians are now visiting a food bank in a single month. Liberal inflation has driven up interest rates and Canada is most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. This has also driven up rents and everything else.
When I met this single mother, she told me the reality of her situation. She is a single mom of three kids. Her rent went up by $600. She could not afford to eat. She could not afford to feed her kids and heat her home at the same time. What did she have to do? She had to move in with her abusive ex-husband once again and live in that same situation because she could not afford to feed her kids anymore.
The Liberal-NDP government refuses to acknowledge that the carbon tax has real consequences. When the government is taxing the farmer who makes the food, the trucker who ships the food, the manufacturer and the people who are storing the food, that tax ultimately goes on the Canadian who is buying the food. That is the sad reality after eight years of the current incompetent Liberal-NDP government.
Canadians' disposable income is getting smaller and smaller due to the deficits that the Liberal government continues to drive up. It is not just that: The Liberals have increased the cost of a house by doubling the amount of mortgages and rents and the time it takes to save up for a down payment on a house. They are also increasing the costs inside the house, like heat, gas and grocery costs. All of these have gone up and they are all inflationary, which was proven by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Canada could be the world leader today in clean, responsible energy that could actually bring down global emissions, and not just emissions in Canada. We could provide for the whole world. We have enough. We just have a Liberal-NDP government that is the ultimate gatekeeper of the success of Canada. There are many marginalized communities that work in the energy sector. The Liberal-NDP woke government, due to its crazy left ideology, has stopped those marginalized communities from being able to be successful here in Canada. Over and over again, we see authoritative, crazy left ideology out-trump common sense.
However, common sense would be restored once again in this country when the member for becomes prime minister of this country. We would green-light green projects. Canada is 64th in the world for permitting. We would make sure that good projects like hydro, tidal and nuclear would actually be built in this country. We would get pipelines built so we could bring down world emissions. We would make sure that our first nations and indigenous brothers and sisters would also become prosperous once again, under a Conservative government, when we partner with them and make sure that we get Canada back to the successful state it needs to be once again.
We would scrap this failed carbon tax so the cost of gas, groceries and home heating would come down. We would make sure that we get more energy produced in this country so that we could lower the cost of energy.
That is what the world needs, that is what Canada needs and that is what Canadians need. When the member for becomes prime minister, we would bring those things home. We would bring home powerful paycheques and we would bring home lower costs for our people.
:
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his eloquence, the quality of his speech and especially his strong and passionate defence of his province, Alberta. I thank my colleague.
We are here today because after eight years of this Liberal , the economic situation of Canadian and Quebec families is only getting worse. This morning, I saw on Twitter that there were record lineups at food banks. This happened at the Bouchée généreuse food bank in the Quebec City area. The journalist says he has never seen such long lineups before.
People are relying on food banks because they simply cannot afford groceries anymore, now that everything is more expensive. A Leger poll published today in Le Journal de Québec is quite worrisome, especially for young Quebeckers. More than half of young people are living paycheque to paycheque.
That means that they get paid $500 on Thursday and, by the following Wednesday, all that money is gone and the bank account is empty. They simply have to wait for the next paycheque and hope that nothing bad happens during the night, like their car getting towed. People just do not have the money. That is what living from paycheque to paycheque means.
Unfortunately, in Quebec, 51% of young people are living paycheque to paycheque. The number of workers living paycheque to paycheque increased by 26% in 2022. According to the poll, this is causing more stress. The higher cost of living is demoralizing those aged 40 and under, 62% of whom feel unable to cope with societal issues, an increase of 5% compared to 2022. They feel less confident in their ability to face challenges. The cost of rent is getting to be a real problem for them: 72% say that rent makes up too big a chunk of their budget. That is 8% more than the previous year. Those are huge numbers when we talk about something as important as housing.
I also want to quote a comment from that article. Kassendra Hachey, who is 28, said: “I live paycheque to paycheque. I work every other weekend on top of going to school. I have to work at least 24 hours to make ends meet.”
Unfortunately, that is the reality and situation for young Quebeckers today, after eight years of this Liberal government. With its inflationary spending, the Liberal government has made the situation intolerable. It is unacceptable for people to be experiencing a situation like this in 2023 in a G7 country like Canada.
We are at a turning point where real choices need to be made. Either we continue in the same direction where fewer and fewer people will be able to afford housing and fewer and fewer people will be able to afford food, or we choose to take action to bring down prices, mortgage payments and inflation.
That brings me to today's motion. It is a quick and easy solution that we can implement immediately and that will have a direct impact on the wallets of these young people, the wallets of every family across Canada and in Quebec. Our proposal is to cancel the carbon taxes, which are increasing the price of everything.
I can already hear the Bloc Québécois members say—as they have said over and over again today—that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec and that the Conservatives are wrong. They used unparliamentary language. The of the Bloc Québécois used unparliamentary language throughout his speech this morning. Unfortunately, no one noticed. I am pointing it out because, unfortunately, the leader of the Bloc Québécois took the liberty of saying things he should not have said.
Any carbon tax imposed on Canadians still has an impact on Quebec. It is not complicated. This is because everything produced elsewhere in Canada is subject to the carbon tax. What is produced elsewhere in Canada is not necessarily available in Quebec. That food has to be transported all the way to Quebec. We know that a lot of food processing takes place in Ontario. It has to be transported by trucks, which are subject to the carbon tax.
Therefore, when food reaches grocery store shelves in Quebec, it obviously costs more because twice the carbon tax will have been imposed, along with the GST. In short, Quebeckers are suffering because of the carbon tax imposed by the federal government in the other provinces across the country.
In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois had a unique opportunity to ensure that there were no additional costs on carbon added to the price per litre of gas at the pump. The government brought in the clean fuel regulations through the back door. The House did not vote on these regulations because the Liberals adopted them behind closed doors. They did not think it made much sense so they did it in secret.
We saw them coming. We moved a motion on June 5 to say that it did not make sense to increase the price of gas per litre again when Canadians and Quebeckers do not have any money left in their pockets.
Anyone who lives in a big province like Quebec will know that a car is vital for getting around in the regions. Sometimes it takes two cars to get around, go to work, attend activities, do what needs to be done. We saw the Liberals coming.
We therefore moved a motion to repeal the carbon taxes that are indirectly affecting the cost of groceries and to ask the government to repeal the clean fuel regulations. These regulations, which the Liberals snuck in under the radar, were actually a second carbon tax. We wanted to prevent the price of gas from going up 20¢ a litre plus GST for Quebeckers. We told ourselves that anyone with any common sense who wants to defend the interests of Quebeckers would agree with this common-sense motion so that we could put money back in Quebeckers' pockets right away.
We were in for a surprise. The Bloc Québécois, which claims to be the great defender of the interests of Quebec and the regions of Quebec, did not support our motion. We were sure that the Bloc Québécois would support this motion.
The Liberals voted against it. The NDP voted against it, which is not surprising because that is how the costly NDP-Liberal coalition operates. The NDP followed the Liberals' lead. The Bloc Québécois voted against this motion, against repealing carbon tax 2.0, which would have stopped the government from raising the price of gas by 20¢ a litre in Quebec by 2030.
The Conservatives were the only ones to stand up, but unfortunately, there are not enough of us. Since July 1, Quebeckers have been included in the clean fuel regulations, which will make gas and groceries more expensive. Those are the facts. That is the truth.
Not only is that the truth, but we were flabbergasted by what we found out later. We wanted to understand why the Bloc Québécois would not vote in favour of our motion to cut carbon taxes. We started digging through Hansard to find some of the speeches made by members. We realized that the Bloc Québécois members love increasing the price of gas.
On May 26, 2020, the member for said, “Here are some ideas of what we can do. We can increase the carbon tax. Yes, I said it.”
On February 7, 2023, she said, “We need to keep the fuel tax. We cannot give in and cancel it, which would be dangerous and get us nowhere. I never said it would be easy. It is not easy, but we have to do it.”
What is she saying we have to do? Take more money out of Quebeckers' pockets. That is what that means.
On June 1, 2023, the member for also said, and I quote, “we are not in favour of cancelling the clean fuel regulations. In addition, we do not approve of the Conservative grandstanding on the important issue of inflation and the rising cost of living.”
Did I understand that correctly? Does the Bloc Québécois not see the rise in inflation and the cost of living? This is not grandstanding. It is reality. I think it is high time that the Bloc members opened their eyes and took a look at what is happening around them and what is happening in Quebec.
On June 1, 2023, the member for said, and I quote, “In my opinion, saying that the carbon tax is responsible for today's inflation is a simplistic solution to a complex problem.”
It certainly is a simple solution that will put money back in Quebeckers' pockets right away.
Finally, I had to get to this: On February 7, 2023, the member for said, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far.
I think...that the tax [should] be set at $200 per tonne now. Based on what we are hearing, it will be about $170 per tonne in 2030. That is much too late. It is two minutes past midnight right now. It is no longer one minute to midnight. We must do something drastic.
Going straight to taking money out of Quebeckers' pockets, that is the leftist ideology. That is the Bloc Québécois ideology.
That is why I hope the Bloc Québécois will do the right thing, show a little compassion and vote in favour of our motion to leave more money in the pockets of Quebeckers.
:
Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to meet with my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss and debate a motion moved by the Conservative Party for their opposition day. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with my Conservative colleagues on their proposals because it is an opportunity to understand their position, their priorities and their vision for Canada.
I am not usually one to get upset, but unfortunately, most of the proposals they have made over the past few years have made me sad because they are bad for Canada. Today, we are studying a motion on the carbon pricing. More specifically, the Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill to eliminate all carbon pricing to lower the price of gas, groceries and heating.
I will begin by explaining why the government put a price on carbon.
The threat posed by climate change is very real. It is not a problem that is only going to happen in the future. It is happening now. All of our regions felt it this summer when we had the worst wildfire season in the history of Canada. There has also been flooding across the country, particularly in my riding of Kings—Hants. What is more, the frequency and intensity of storms is definitely a challenge for all Canadians. It is a challenge for everyone. We are familiar with this reality.
The initiatives put in place by the government and all parliamentarians in the House are for our children and grandchildren. Of course, we also answered questions today about changes in practice and other initiatives because climate change is real. It is happening right now.
[English]
I want to highlight that there are 77 carbon pricing initiatives around the world. I have had the opportunity to go to the World Bank site, and people can actually look at where they exist in the world and what types of initiatives other countries, other jurisdictions, have taken on. It is not as though Canada is the only country in the world that has a price on carbon. There are many other countries that go that way.
The Conservatives like to draw attention to carbon pricing. Nowhere did the Government of Canada, on this side, ever suggest that carbon pricing alone is going to be a silver bullet mechanism to help solve climate change. In fact, it is one mechanism among many that this government has presented. However, as I have said and perhaps teased some of my Conservative colleagues opposite on, the idea of introducing a price signal into the market and letting the market respond accordingly is inherently a small-c conservative principle.
I asked the member for about the fact that there are projects across this country from companies that are responding to the price signal and driving really important innovation. The Conservatives like to talk about the slogan “technology, not taxes”, and it is indeed a slogan because they have no evidence of how they are going to incentivize the private sector and our great Canadian companies to make innovations and drive transitional change. Billions of dollars in this country are premised on that, and not only do companies now understand that it is in their best interests to do this because it is where there are generational opportunities, but of course they want to get around the price signal.
The Conservatives stand here today and do not signal that they are willing to support any form of carbon pricing in this country. That is problematic because billions of dollars of investment in this country rest upon that. Indeed, I will not suggest that we have it perfect, and I will get into that in my remarks, but the Conservatives do not offer a compelling alternative whatsoever. They just simply oppose without putting forward any solutions of their own.
[Translation]
From a political perspective, I am curious about and interested in this motion, particularly the way it is worded. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are fighting. The Conservatives named the Bloc Québécois in the text of their motion. I think there must be some kind of argument going on between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Perhaps the alliance between the two parties has started to break down because of the Conservatives' actions. We will see, but that is what I think is happening right now.
[English]
I want to start with the clean fuel standard. I note this initiative just so that all my colleagues, Canadians watching at home and perhaps people here in the gallery can understand what it is. The clean fuel standard is an initiative to reduce the carbon intensity in the fuels that we use. There have been other initiatives throughout time that I would say are similar to it. For example, there were times that we moved on regulations to remove lead from the fuel we use in our cars. I believe that initiative was championed by the Mulroney government some years ago, back when the Conservatives were progressive and we had actual action on climate and environmental initiatives coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. However, indeed, it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I will continue to remind Canadians that there is a difference. My constituents remind me every day that there is a big difference between the predecessor party that someone like Scott Brison was elected to in 1997 and what the Conservative Party of Canada has become today.
This is the initiative: to decarbonize our fuels. We are essentially asking oil and gas refiners in Canada to do that. They can do so with a number of different initiatives. They can add biofuels into the content of their fuels. They can work with farmers. There are tremendous opportunities in the agriculture sector to do offsets through credits. They can work on putting out charging stations. They can put home heating pump programs in place to demonstrate that they are getting the carbon intensity of their fuel down. There are a ton of options.
I want to talk about the projects. The Conservatives often talk about the cost. Indeed, they have in the text of this motion “17 cents per litre”. The parliamentary budget office has said that perhaps in 10 to 12 years there will be a 17¢ cost. In Nova Scotia, that was three cents a litre this summer. Yes, the program is not designed to rebate, but the program also drives industrial action. For example, the Conservatives have not stepped up today and talked about Come By Chance, the sustainable aviation fuel facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 87 million dollars' worth of investment in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It matters. The Conservatives have not talked about the electrolyzer. I have to be honest: I do not know what that is, but Irving Oil knows that it matters to its clean energy future. It has invested $90 million in it as part of the hydrogen strategy.
I was out in Regina, Saskatchewan. Perhaps a Saskatchewan member of Parliament will engage with me on this. A big billion-dollar co-operative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help drive its initiatives, in part because of the clean fuel standard. However, the Conservatives never talk about that, and it is important to note it.
The Conservatives are concerned about the three cents a litre in Nova Scotia, and I do not want to sound dismissive; I know every penny matters right now. The affordability question is an important one. However, if the Conservatives want to highlight the three-cents-a-litre increase on gasoline in Nova Scotia as a result of the clean fuel standard, they also need to highlight the major industrial investments being made in the Atlantic region. Maybe, as I have done publicly, they could encourage the provinces to see that, while the program was not designed to rebate, provinces have more money in their treasuries as a result of these major industrial projects and could reduce the provincial gas tax to make sure that is taken care of. They could do that. These are some suggestions that I offer to my Conservative colleagues.
The text of the motion is inherently, and I better not use the word “misleading”, but I have problems with the contents and the way the motion is written. For example, on 17¢ litre, the Conservatives do not give any context to the reader at home about what that means. They talk about things such as quadrupling to 61¢, and they give no context.
It was tripling just a few months ago. We would hear Conservative members, like a flock of crows, saying, “triple, triple, triple”, and we heard that for months. I guess now they are going to have to say “quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple”. I do not know how it has changed, but it has changed. They play a little loose and fast with the facts.
Again, the question around affordability and the question about whether or not we can look at adjusting measures under the carbon price is fair game. I am there, and I am going to get to that in my speech, but it is the idea that somehow they just basically put this out that I have problems with it.
The member for stood up in this House a few speeches ago and said that the carbon price applies to a tractor driving on a farm. That is fundamentally untrue. If the Conservatives want to suggest that the carbon price applies to grain drying and that it should be removed, then yes, that is factually correct. They can go there. I have stood here and voted for the bill that came forward, Bill .
However, we have to keep the debate in some realm of fact. It is like we are in a post-truth era, when people get up to say anything. I know we can have different perspectives on this, and I know that there is a range of debate, but we have to keep this in the confines of what is actually real.
On that, as we have talked about the price of fuel, groceries and home heating, I have an article from the National Post. I know that the Conservatives read the National Post because, of course, it is a bit more conservative leaning. I think some of it is fair. I read it too. The article is from September 21, 2023, so not that long ago, and I would encourage all members of the House to read it. There was a question about how much the carbon price contributes to the things the Conservatives are talking about today. I will read from the article, which I am happy to table later if I get unanimous consent. It says that the Bank of Canada estimates that 0.15% of inflation is tied to carbon pricing. Yes, there is some impact, but what we do not talk about, of course, is that the money is being rebated back to households.
The article also says that the carbon price contributes to less than 1% of the cost of groceries. When we look at what the Conservatives are calling for, yes, every dollar matters, but when we talk about this being a mechanism to drive some of those industrial projects I talked about earlier, that is extremely important. In fact, Trevor Tombe, who is an economist from Alberta, cites that it is 30¢ on every $100 grocery bill.
This is an important question, but the Conservatives are essentially calling for a reduction of 30¢ on every $100 that is spent on groceries in this country. I think they should join us in other initiatives that really matter for being helpful support: child care, the Canada child benefit and supports for seniors. There are a lot of different initiatives that they can get on board with. I am not so convinced that this one alone would solve the question of affordability.
I have talked about carbon pricing as it relates to major industrial projects, and I think I have exhausted that one. However, I look forward to my hon. member for standing up. We will have a great debate on whether or not that matters to his province, and we will get that on the record.
I want to talk about the position of Atlantic MPs, because we Liberal Atlantic MPs are specifically noted in the text of the motion before us. I cannot speak for every one of my Atlantic Liberal colleagues, as that would be inappropriate, but I will speak as one Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament.
Unlike what the leader of the official opposition had to say in question period today, I am not against carbon pricing. I am calling on this government to have adjustments to its approach on the federal backstop.
Unlike my Conservative colleagues, who just want to burn it down and say, “No, this is terrible”, but offer no solutions, I am trying to be constructive in both my comments here in the House, anything I say publicly, and what I say to my constituents on the intent of the policy. I go back to climate change and the generational challenge that we have before us.
This government is trying to move in the right direction, and the intent is the right one, but I think there are a couple of things that need to be adjusted. I am happy to talk about them.
First of all, the definition of what qualifies as a rural community has to be re-examined. Right now, if one lives in a census metropolitan area versus if one is outside defines whether one is urban or rural. We know the country is a bit more nuanced than that. There is an opportunity to re-evaluate that. There are some communities that may be within a CMA but are inherently and objectively rural communities. I have said that before and will continue to say it.
The rural rebate provided for constituents outside of those CMAs could be examined and could be increased, and not because rural Canadians do not want to be a part of the fight on climate change. We have to make sure there is a difference between the lived realities in urban and rural areas.
On affordability of home heating, I want to note that this government put $118 million into Atlantic Canada in October. We have not heard one single mention of that from the Conservative benches. It is a program that makes a difference on energy efficiency, and it is a program that makes a difference on home heating oil usage. It is good for the environment, but particularly to the intent of this bill, it is really important for affordability. There was not one word mentioned on that.
There has to be more time for those programs to work out, and I made it very clear that I hope the government will consider exempting or otherwise indemnifying individuals until such time that the merits of that program to help people get transitioned off can be in place.
The last thing I would say is we need to continue to focus on the supply side with, for example, EV charging stations and maybe perhaps more of an emphasis on the heat pump program. I have talked to the member for , and I know in Newfoundland and Labrador there is some work that has to be done on electricity upgrades to ensure the heat pumps can actually function and we can move forward. However, this is all really good for focusing on affordability and also tackling the issue of climate change. That is my proposition, which is that it is not mutually exclusive. These things need to happen at the same time.
I want to go to Bill . The Conservatives are going to roll their eyes because I have been at them over the last week, but I am still perplexed as to why the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in this country, is opposing a bill that is supported by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the clean energy sector, indigenous communities and business stakeholders. We are engaging with fisheries, and I say that because I can image the member for is going to ask about the fisheries. They are extremely important stakeholders who deserve to be and are part of that conversation.
Everyone is on board, this is the way to enable it, yet Conservatives stand in opposition. They have something to answer to Atlantic Canadians on that question because they are standing against the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They talk about the technology, the future of renewable energy in Atlantic Canada, not taxes, but they will not even let the technology drive forward. It is so hypocritical.
I have really enjoyed engaging in this. I cannot wait for questions. I am going to move quickly so we can get as many members in as possible.
To conclude, carbon pricing is an initiative that is implemented around the world to help create a mechanism to drive change. This government is focused on investing on the supply side to help people make that change. We have made sure, in the way the program is designed, that money goes back disproportionately to households to help protect them.
I have talked about the statistics, and about how much carbon pricing, according to the Bank of Canada and according to economists in the National Post, a paper I hope the Conservatives read, is contributing very little to the overall things they are talking about here today.
I have explained my position on carbon pricing. I believe in the intent. I believe in the inherent nature of why we are doing this. However, I am calling for adjustments. I stand here proud, as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, recognizing that, for the constituents I represent, the national program needs to be adjusted to better reflect their reality. I am offering solutions. I look across the way, and I see very little in terms of solutions.
On a bill that represents billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada's economy, let us forget the fact that this represents an ability to decarbonize our electricity grid and perhaps provide power to my good friends over in Quebec through Atlantic Canada. This is about jobs, prosperity and great economic opportunities for communities. The Conservatives continue to stand against that.
I look forward to a member of Parliament from the Conservative caucus of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia getting up and going on the record here today and explaining to their constituents why they are standing in the way of billions of dollars of opportunities, and I think I am going to get that answer right now.
:
Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time this afternoon with the member for .
It is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of my constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha and of all Canadians. I am the shadow minister for families, children and social development, and I have been pretty vocal in my cry of the mental health crisis across this country, in particular for our kids. They are not doing okay.
Today, what we are going to talk about in the House directly impacts our children. Today is an opposition motion day put forth by our leader, the . An opposition motion has been put forth by us. We are the official opposition; we are not in government. We do not get to set the agenda and we do not get to set policy. We are here as opposing members to bring balance to the government. The problem is that we do not have just the Liberals in power; we have an NDP-Liberal coalition that signed a deal that is deeply hurting Canadians.
The opposition motion that was put forward today and that we are debating in the House is that “the House call on the government to introduce legislation, within seven days of this motion being adopted, to repeal all carbon taxes to bring home lower prices on gas, groceries, and home heating”. My Conservative colleagues can applaud for that. It is a very important piece of legislation and will give members an idea, when the vote happens, where the members of the House stand.
The reality is that there are very real consequences to decisions and policies made in the House, and there are very real consequences to taxing fuel, which is what the carbon tax is doing. When we tax fuel that a farmer needs to run his tractors on his field or to take care of his animals, we are then going to have to transfer that tax to the trucker, who is going to have move that food. We are then going to have to tax the manufacturer of the food. Members can guess who ends up paying that compounded price. It is Canadians, the people at home watching this. What happens to their hard-earned paycheque? It falls out of their hand like sand.
I asked last night, through my social media channels, to hear from my constituents, because that is what we are elected to do in the House. We are elected to listen to and be the voice of our ridings. There are about 115,000 people in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. We are a bellwether riding, which means we are reflective of the entire country. We are a bit of a microcosm of what happens in Canada. I asked people to share their stories with me of how the carbon tax is impacting their lives, and I asked if I could read those into the record, so that is what I am going to do right now.
I am going to start with Shannon Montgomery Sundberg, who writes that she does not even know where to start. She is a business owner and needs fuel for everything. She needs truck parts, plow parts, machinery, oils and insurance. Her customers are not able to pay what they owe, because their own families are struggling. Shannon says that she cannot afford to hire extra help; there is not enough work to keep the business going. The lack of income is starting to affect her mental health, for which, she says, there is no help.
Shannon writes, “It is so much more than carbon tax. It is a whole broken system. Ontarians are being forced out.” They feel that the government does not want them, and that it “should be helping its people, not stomping on them while they are down.” She says divisions created by the government make her cry almost daily. Everywhere she looks, she sees people in difficulty. As a mother of four grown children, who have spouses and children of their own, Shannon says that she worries every day about the cost of healthy food. She asks, “Can you imagine as a mother not being able to offer good healthy food to your kids and their kids because you are trying to hold on yourself?”
Shannon calls herself “a very proud Canadian”, but she nonetheless has a “disgusting feeling” towards the whole government. She writes, “Every single person under our Prime Minister has had every opportunity to walk away and/or speak up. We the people voted the Government in and we the people should be able to say enough is enough. We want a Government for the people.”
Chad writes, “We live in a rural part of Ontario. With the current fuel prices, to fill my truck and SUV for my wife and I for one week is about $325. We spent $500 last week on groceries as we have a family of 5; [that is] $825 in one week for groceries and fuel.”
Carol Anne Grant writes that their power bill for one month is now $400. With the cost of heating their home, she says, their whole pension goes to paying household bills, with nothing left for groceries. Stats from Food Bank Canada say that seven million people are not able to feed themselves and that 1.5 million people a month are using food banks. These are people with jobs. That is what is happening across our country.
This next message comes from Jeff Dunk, who writes that he works for a trucking company and that there are drivers sitting at home. There is not enough work because people do not want to pay the current rates for transportation.
Erica's message is pretty profound, as all of them are. Erica writes, “My husband and myself work decent paying jobs (combined over $100,000) and we have two kids. We rent our two bedroom home and have two vehicles. I run out of money two days after pay day.” One of their children is diabetic. She says, “the cost of groceries is ridiculous. I am spending about $400 every two weeks to feed my kids.” That means that the hydro bill is not getting paid, or sometimes they pay just enough to keep the lights on. Sometimes the heating gas bill is not getting paid.
Erica goes on to ask, “How is it that a family making over $100,000 a year can't be comfortable? We are just as broke as we were when we were barely making $50,000 a year combined.” She has worked hard and finally has a wage she always dreamed of, yet she says, “I am getting nowhere. I am stuck in the small rental because I can't afford the rent for anywhere else. I am penny pinching for two weeks to make it to next pay day. I am tired. I feel defeated. It is no wonder mental health has become a crisis. Trudeau is to blame for that.”
:
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the formidable MP for . We come from different parts of the country and different backgrounds, but as are all Conservatives in our big, growing movement, we are united with our to fight to axe the carbon tax; to bring down food and fuel prices, as well as heating and cooling costs for all Canadians; to build homes Canadians can afford; and to bring jobs, money, businesses, natural resource development and exports.
Conservatives will bring project approvals up and the cost of traditional energy down. We will green-light green technology and ensure major projects and infrastructure can get built in this country again, so all Canadians can have accessible, affordable, reliable fuel and power, and, most importantly, hope for the future.
Our and Conservatives warned the NDP-Liberal government repeatedly during the past eight years that its reckless tax, spending and inflationary deficit agenda would drive investment out of Canada and make everything more expensive for everyone. Only a few months after I was elected as the MP to represent the people of Lakeland, in response to the 2016 budget, even I warned of the dangers of this regressive, repressive tax. Before the Liberals imposed it, I said then, which is clearly true today, that the carbon tax was just a revenue generator for government to feed reckless spending and out-of-control deficits masquerading as environmental policy.
However, the NDP-Liberals have traded on all Canadians' deep concern and care for the environment to cover their obvious cash grab. The proof is in the most difficult ways. Almost a decade into their irresponsible, harmful experiment, it has been all economic pain and no environmental gain for Canadians. Of course, the MP who predicted everything about the consequences of the NDP-Liberal agenda was our , the MP for , in his previous role as the official opposition finance shadow minister. What is remarkable is that he also warned of the risks and costs back in 2007, 16 years ago, of the Liberals' plan to implement a carbon tax, which he warned would cost everyday Canadians thousands of dollars that they would not be able to afford. He has always opposed it, and we still do.
In terms of inflation, rising interest rates and the skyrocketing prices for essentials such as gas, groceries and home heating, Conservatives warned about the connections of all these policies. We warned that the dreams of new and young Canadians would be compromised and undermined by the NDP-Liberal policies that always do, in real terms, the very opposite of what they claim. The NDP-Liberals like to say that they do not take lessons from Conservatives or our , but they really should have. It would have saved all Canadians years of struggles, bankruptcies, foreclosures, anxiety, catastrophic losses of generational opportunities, hundreds of thousands of job losses, billions in investments and a brain drain to other countries, allies and foes alike. It is a tragic hindsight, and it is obvious that they really should have listened.
Canadians remember the Liberals' main 2015 promise that they would help the middle class and those working hard to join it, but the facts are stark, and these are pesky things for politicians such as the , who do not keep their word or take responsibility. As the Prime Minister has been in power for almost a decade, it is time for him to answer for it. The truth is that, under the previous Conservative government, more Canadian kids and vulnerable families were lifted out of poverty than at any other time in the history of our country, and Canada's middle class became the richest middle class of any country on earth in 2014. At that time, it really was sunny skies ahead.
What has happened today? The Liberals have moved the way their government measures the poverty line to pretend their policies have worked. The middle class is dwindling, because the vast majority of Canadians cannot pay their bills or cover their essential costs, and more Canadians are falling behind after eight years under the and the NDP-Liberal government.
The truth is that there is no honest way to skirt the fact that the NDP-Liberals' carbon taxes have very real, punitive and burdensome impacts on everyday Canadians. In Lakeland, the NDP-Liberals' carbon tax will cost people nearly $4,000 a year in the next six years. The consequence is that Canadians everywhere, not just in Lakeland, are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to fuel their vehicles, and to heat and cool their homes and businesses. In the vast majority of our country there are just no other immediately available and affordable options for Canadians. They are left with no choice. They are squeezed by all sides, and it is at a breaking point after eight years under the and his NDP-Liberal policies.
The Liberals can spin it all they want. They can dig in and stubbornly justify their harmful agenda, but the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms what we warned, that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax hikes the cost of literally everything. This is why 80% of Canadians pay more than they will ever get back from the Liberals, exactly as we said.
The independent PBO also found that the tax has not actually reduced emissions since it was imposed. It is a cash grab. It is not a bug, an accident or an unintended consequence. It is a feature of their agenda. The Liberals themselves admitted that their carbon tax is meant to make driving more expensive, and they are plowing ahead to quadruple those costs and add a second carbon tax on top of it. Together, those taxes would hike prices at the pumps by 61¢ a litre in the next seven years. Seriously, who could afford this?
There is no light at the end of the tunnel for most Canadians under these NDP-Liberals, who are totally out of touch. Now, exactly as we warned, Canadians are out of money. Canadians are not sitting around hoping the government that claims it is here to help would make it totally impossible for them to afford to drive and heat their homes, but this is actually exactly what the NDP-Liberals and Bloc want to do and are doing.
As we warned, it is mostly hurting the working poor, people on fixed incomes, rural and remote Canadians, indigenous communities and, especially, people in rural regions in the west and Atlantic Canada. This is because of the differences in the realities of the various regions and provinces.
Canadians in our biggest cities can hardly even afford to rent a single room in a single house. That alone is thousands of dollars. They cannot keep up with interest rate hikes caused by soaring inflationary deficit spending, which are pushing their rent and mortgages out of reach. We also warned about this in 2016.
It is not a pleasure, at all, to tell the NDP-Liberals that we told them so, because of all the pain, anger and anxiety they have caused. However, they also cannot pretend that Conservatives did it.
Colinton is a village of 170 people near Athabasca, in a beautiful area where the landscape shifts to rolling hills and more lakes, giving way to the treasured and beautiful boreal forest that spans throughout northern Alberta. Gordie from Colinton wrote to me and said that his daughter and her husband have four kids, and here is the crucial and horrible part that would be familiar to most Canadians: They both have well-paying jobs. However, by the time they pay rent, gas, power and heating, the family has to skimp on groceries or choose to not pay some bills. As we all know, this often ends up in a spiral people cannot escape.
This is not just happening in Lakeland. It is a common reality, and it is a travesty that Canadians now face, after almost a decade under the , in urban and rural communities alike, in every region of the country.
Rob from Bonnyville had never contacted my office before, but he recently did so because he needed to tell me about the dire situation with his gas bill. He said,
We are paying more than 100% tax on the small amount of gas we are using. If this tax is supposed to be for the amount of CO2 generated by the burning of the gas, something is definitely wrong here.
What happens in winter when the gas bill is $100 or more, are we going to be gouged over $100 for the tax as well? This is certainly an unfair tax charged to Canadian citizens.
He also said, “What about the seniors on a fixed income, they cannot afford this kind of charge.”
It was -52°C for a couple of weeks in my backyard last Christmas, so it is obvious why Ron is worried. He is just one of the four out of every five Canadians who will pay more in carbon tax than they get back, while nearly half of Canadians are forced to borrow just for basics and have no emergency savings. More than ever before, 20% of Canadians are skipping meals, and seven million struggle to put food on the table. Sixty-nine per cent of seniors have to postpone their retirement because of these NDP-Liberal policies.
All this, in a first world country blessed with all the human capital and abundant natural resources that underpin our entire economy, if only the Liberal government would stop keeping it in the ground through red taping and gatekeeping. It is a disgrace.
This is not really a theoretical debate either. What Conservatives are saying is true. It is happening in real time. It is literally how things work when an out-of-touch, out-of-ideas government taxes the farmers and ranchers who grow the food, the processors and all the agri-food businesses that make the food, the truckers who ship it, the stores that sell it, and the people who buy it, which is literally all of us because we all need to eat, who are also taxed on their own fuel and home heating. The consequences are that Canadians cannot cover the basics. They cannot afford to eat. What is this for?
No one can really answer that anymore, because there is no proven or discernible impact on emissions reduction. Emissions have increased every year in the past eight years, except when all Canadians were locked down by COVID.
Conservatives will axe the carbon tax to bring prices and costs down for Canadians so they can have hope for the future. We will turn hurt into hope. The NDP-Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. It is clearly not worth the cost.
:
Madam Speaker, it has been quite a day. We have heard a lot of different things. I will do my best to remain calm.
For starters, the Conservatives wonder why we do not adopt their motions, why we do not vote in favour of most of them. I will tell them, quite honestly, that it is because most of their motions are rigged. Most of their motions contain inaccuracies. Then, they get offended when we say they are not telling the truth. We are here to serve the public interest; we are not here to pass anything and everything.
It is interesting, because our party is mentioned in the motion. During question period today, I even saw members of the official opposition asking questions of the Bloc Québécois. I found that very interesting. Perhaps they see an independent Quebec in the future, with some of us in government. I found that amusing, so I just wanted to point it out.
The motion states that the Bloc Québécois supported and adopted the clean fuel regulations with the Liberal government. It also refers to the Liberal-Bloc coalition. It is rather funny, though, because coalitions change from one week to the next in this Parliament. Sometimes we hear about the Liberal-NDP coalition. Sometimes the Conservatives also move motions that make sense, and we support them. When that happens, the Liberals talk about the Bloc-Conservative coalition. It changes all the time, so it is super entertaining. I invite people at home to do a survey on this and compile the statistics to see which coalition is the most frequent. Clearly, it is a bit ridiculous to make these accusations.
Today's motion states almost verbatim that the Bloc supported the clean fuel regulations. I often tell my constituents that it is very important for the Bloc Québécois to be present in the federal Parliament, even if our political party will never be in power, because we have a great deal of influence. That said, I did not think our influence was that significant, since regulations are adopted by the government. We do not vote on regulations, so when the Conservatives say that we passed those regulations, it is not true.
If it upsets the Conservatives when we tell them that it is a lie, then what can we say? I will go back to what I was saying. On top of that, these clean fuel regulations will have no impact on Quebec because the Government of Quebec already has regulations that call for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 15% by 2030. That is what it says in the regulations.
We are not the ones who adopted the clean fuel regulations and we never supported them. What is more, these regulations will make no difference to Quebeckers' wallets. What I am saying is serious because they have been repeating this all day long. Repeating a lie a million times does not make it true. Actually, it depends on the lie. For a year now the Conservatives have been saying that the Liberal government has been in power for eight years. When they started saying that it had been only seven years. It was therefore not true. In a month it will be eight years, at which point it will be true. I am not sure if that will work for the other lies, but it works for this one.
We are here to work for the people and to try to move forward on issues. Some will say I am a dreamer, but I want to quote John Lennon. I just had a flash. There is a line in the song
Imagine that goes like this:
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
As a parliamentarian, I dream of the day when election campaigns last a month and a half or two months instead of three or four years; in the interval, we would work for the common good. I invite my Conservative colleagues to watch sittings from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I think we manage to work well together, and I am very proud of that. I have said it several times before in the House.
I try to bring the same attitude here. In that spirit, I will not start calling this or that member a liar. Instead, I will state that what was said is not true. Some might say that it is the same thing, but at least I will not use unparliamentary language. At least there is that.
The Bloc Québécois did not adopt the clean fuel regulations. I hope they make a clip of what I just said. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. I hope they make a clip of that, too. Quebec has an emissions trading system that was established with California and that is still in force. The system was set up in 2013, if I am not mistaken. That date is just off the top of my head. It may have been a little more recent than that. Actually, forget I mentioned the date. This system was adopted prior to the carbon tax and is advantageous for Quebeckers. It is estimated that it adds 8.8¢ to the price of a litre of gasoline in Quebec, compared with 14.3¢ for the carbon tax. That definitely means we are at an advantage, not a disadvantage.
When the Conservative members from Quebec strongly denounce the carbon tax, accuse the mean old Bloc of costing Quebeckers a lot of money and say that, if they take office, they will repeal the carbon tax and put money directly back in Quebeckers' pockets, it is not true. Quebec's emissions trading system will remain in effect even if the Conservatives repeal the carbon tax that applies in other provinces. It is important to point that out. When I rise in the House, I will always make it my duty to clearly and calmly set the record straight.
We said that the Conservatives were proposing simplistic solutions. Earlier, a member quoted our use of the word “simplistic” and said that the Conservatives' solution was indeed simple because it would put money back in Quebeckers' pockets. The word “simplistic” actually means something that seems simple but is actually ineffective and poorly thought out, something that does not actually solve the problem. With all due respect, I would invite the Conservatives to look up the definition of the word “simplistic” so that they know for next time. Perhaps they should stop trying to exploit opposition to climate change and the cost of living for their own political gain. It is true that the cost of living is high and that that is very serious, but there are other places where the government can find money. Oil companies are making outrageous profits. We talked about that today.
At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we studied inflation at the grocery store and made some recommendations. One of them, of course, was about the need to determine the breakdown of the profits being made by the major grocery chains, which constitute an oligopoly. The five major grocery chains control 80% of the market. We are hearing a lot today about the price of gas. Funnily enough, the oil companies are also an oligopoly. As far as gas is concerned, we know how much money those companies are making. As far as the grocery sector is concerned, we do not know. What we are saying is that we need this information to determine what action the government can take, because concrete measures will have to be taken to help our agri-food businesses.
There is one thing that boggles my mind when it comes to the fight against climate change. It is hearing some people say that we need to produce oil and build pipelines, without taking climate change into account, because they expect that this will lower the cost of living. I urge my colleagues to talk to vegetable farmers, particularly in Quebec, but also elsewhere. Some had to deal with torrential rains all summer long. Of course, we cannot always make a direct scientific link between a particular season and global warming. However, I could also mention forest fires, more frequent hurricanes and a whole host of other events.
We cannot link each element directly, but we can see that the frequency is higher, that the climate disruptions are substantial and that it is costing money. It is not true that climate change does not cost money. It is costing us a tremendous amount of money. This summer, the forest fires cost us $8 billion, and that does not even take the long-term effects into account. Just think of the cost of insurance. There will come a day when the companies will no longer want to insure people who live in fire-prone areas. That is important as well. As far as insurance is concerned, can we determine together how to share the cost of the risk factor with farmers in order to maintain food production for the future? Keeping food production local and not relying on foreign companies that can raise prices overnight could also bring down the cost of living.
In closing, I invite my Conservative colleagues, with all due respect, to be more conscientious. Let us work together for the common good.