Skip to main content
Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content




Thursday, October 20, 2022

Emblem of the House of Commons

House of Commons Debates

Volume 151
No. 114


Thursday, October 20, 2022

Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota

    The House met at 10 a.m.


Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]



Committees of the House

Public Accounts 

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Public Accounts of Canada 2021”.


    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.


    There will be another presentation dealing with the report right away.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the Conservatives' dissenting report on the 2021 public accounts report.
    The government misleadingly states that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. The 2021 public accounts, though, showed that $100 million of the carbon tax was diverted to spending programs and not returned to Canadians. We therefore recommend that the PBO present an independent and true analysis of the carbon tax, its effect on inflation and the GDP and the claim of revenue neutrality.
    Furthermore, for the public accounts, the government for the first time ever ordered the Auditor General to reopen the audited and finalized financial statements in order to stuff in billions of dollars of added spending. Our recommendation would provide the confidence in the public accounts that Canadians and this Parliament deserve.
    Should the government again revise the public accounts after they are finalized, we recommend that the secretary of the Treasury Board and the comptroller general report their rationale for doing so to the public accounts committee, that the Auditor General present her or his views to the committee and that all three appear at the public accounts committee to discuss the matter.


Customs Act

    (Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)



Fisheries Licences  

    Mr. Speaker, I stand here this morning to present a petition on behalf of the non-core fishing enterprise owners of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow transfer of their licences. At last count, the DFO put the number of these licence-holders at 454. Half of these people live in my riding of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. They are people like Roy Morey in La Scie, Bobby Gillingham in Seal Cove, Joe Legge in Twillingate and Bob Jacobs and Perry Sacrey of Baie Verte.
    Last year, the federal court ruled that similar class B licences in Nova Scotia be made transferrable. The non-core licence-holders of Newfoundland and Labrador must be treated the same.
    I thank Ryan Cleary and SEA-NL for their work in gathering names for this petition.




    Mr. Speaker, on the Island of Montreal, there is an extraordinary place known as TechnoparcOiseaux or Champ des monarques. A site rich in biodiversity, it is home to 193,000 species of birds and an essential feeding ground for the monarch butterfly, which has been declared an endangered species. This site is also at risk because the Montreal airports authority, Aéroports de Montréal, wants to use and develop the space.
    However, Aéroports de Montréal does not own the land; Transport Canada does. It is public land that belongs to us. Hundreds of citizens, along with a dozen municipalities on the Island of Montreal, are asking the federal government to modify the lease with Aéroports de Montréal in order to create a national park. We need to protect this highly biodiverse natural space, one of the rare wetlands on the Island of Montreal, and preserve it for future generations.


Railway Safety  

    Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured to present two petitions this morning on behalf of the families and loved ones of three men killed in a tragic rail accident near Field, B.C., in February 2019. The three men were Dylan Paradis, Andrew Dockrell and Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer.
    The petitioners draw attention to the archaic practice in Canada of allowing rail corporations to use private corporate police forces to administer investigations of a criminal nature. This is a practice that the petitioners point out is long past its due date and should be abolished. They call on the Government of Canada to repeal sections 44 and 44.1 of the Railway Safety Act and legislate a new federal independent public railway police of Canada, funded by the railway companies but answerable to an independent civilian oversight commission.
    The second petition I present is on the same topic. It calls for the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into the nature and extent of the damage that corporate railway policing has had on the criminal investigation of numerous railway fatalities and injuries, plus the political and diplomatic implications of Canadian companies exercising police powers in the United States.

Indigenous Affairs  

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to present a petition that deals with the ongoing and all-too-slow effort to implement the recommendations and calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The report, of course, was from an in-depth inquiry, and the petitioners reference that in 2013, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci issued his report on first nations representation on Ontario's juries.
    The petitioners, recognizing that this place does not instruct things to the provinces, have called on the House of Commons to immediately undertake to encourage the provinces to reform their jury selection systems and make other reforms that are required in order to enact calls to action 25 to 42 to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done for indigenous people going through the criminal justice system.

Electoral Reform  

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table petition e-3881, signed by 676 constituents.
    They cite that Canada's electoral system, from its very inception, has been a first-past-the-post system, unfairly resulting in either a Liberal or Conservative government. Proportional representation is a principle that says the percentage of seats a party has in the legislature should reflect the percentage of people who voted for that party. They cite that if a party gets 40% of the popular vote, it should get 40% of the seats. They also cite that under a first-past-the-post system, the current system in Canada, a party can win a majority of seats and all the power with less than half the popular vote.
    They are calling on the government to move to a proportional system to bring credible representation to Canadians.



    Mr. Speaker, today I table a petition signed by many residents of Winnipeg North that deals with the issue of health care. They are looking at the federal government's important role of ensuring that the health care system is there to support Canadians no matter where they live and, in particular, that we focus attention on issues such as long-term care and pharmaceuticals, along with other issues related to health care, including mental health.

Questions on the Order Paper

    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Business of Supply]


Business of Supply

Opposition Motion—Tax Exemption on Home Heating Fuel  

    That, given that,
(i) one-tenth of Canadians heat their homes during Canada's cold winter months with heating oil or propane heat because there are no alternatives,
(ii) Canada is the only G7 country to have raised fuel taxes during this period of record high global fuel prices,
(iii) energy analysts have predicted that Canadians could see their home heating bills rise by 50 to 100 percent on average this winter,
(iv) the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote to the federal Liberal government on September 2, 2022, asking for a carbon tax exemption on home heating fuels and stated: "A year ago today, the maximum price of furnace oil in the Province was 97.91 cents per litre. Today's price is 155.70, which is an increase of nearly 60 per cent. Your proposed federal carbon tax increase on furnace oil would result in an additional 17.38 cents plus HST. Added to today's price, [the carbon tax] would result in a total cost increase of 80 per cent compared to one year ago", punishing rural people in Newfoundland and Labrador forced to heat with furnace oil,
the House express its agreement with the comments of the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and call on the government to exempt all forms of home heating fuel from the carbon tax for all Canadians.
    He said: Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is rising because of the cost of government. The $500-billion inflationary deficit is increasing the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes further increase the cost to produce those goods and services. The more the government spends, the more things cost. It is just inflation, as my hon. colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, will explain because I will be sharing my time with him.
    The Liberals will say that they had no choice but to add these enormous deficits. However, I will remind them that they had added $100 billion to our national debt even before COVID-19. That is four times more than the Prime Minister had promised. He had already set out a plan for deficits over 30 years, after saying it would only be three years. Even before the Russians invaded Ukraine, the Prime Minister had already added $500 billion to the deficit, and the inflation rate was over 5%.
    He cannot simply blame the external effects of the current crises, especially since I had warned the government that there would be inflation and, as a result, interest rate hikes. However, the Liberals continued to spend, tax and fuel the crisis we are facing today.
    Clearly, much of the money has been wasted. The Liberals spent billions of dollars to send benefits to inmates, employed public servants and people who could have been working because there were a million jobs available. The government was paying people to stay home. It did all of that.
    I would add that, during COVID-19, that is to say, in the past two years, the Liberals added $200 billion in non-COVID-related debt. That means unnecessary expenditures that the government did not have to incur. That was a choice they made.
    I had warned them that that would lead to inflation, but they said no, that was not a problem, the Bank of Canada would simply print more money. Now we can see the effects, the same effects we have seen over and over throughout history.
    Too much money spent on too few products makes prices go up. That has been true for thousands of years. History does not change. Every time a king, queen, emperor, president, prime minister or anyone at all prints money to pay their bills, the result is always the same: inflation. After inflation come rising interest rates, which is what we are seeing today.
    Suddenly, the government is surprised by the consequences of its decisions. No one forced the Prime Minister to add $100 billion to the national debt before COVID-19 and $500 billion to the national debt before the war in Ukraine. No one forced the Prime Minister to curb the production of affordable energy here in Canada. The Liberals did that. These were decisions made here in Canada and not imposed by external forces.
    Now we are in the middle of an inflationary crisis. The cost of food has gone up 11%, and we are now seeing a crisis in energy costs.
    The government likes to blame the entire world for inflation in Canada, but it is interesting to see that the products with the fastest-rising prices are those we can produce here in Canada, namely food, gasoline and natural gas. We have an abundant supply of these products here in Canada.


    The price increases on these products would have helped our economy if the government had not prevented our farmers from producing more food and our energy workers from producing more energy. Instead of printing more money, we could have produced more of what money buys, like more food and more energy, and we could have built more houses.
    We need to get rid of the gatekeepers. That is another word we should find a good French word for, but, since we are going to get rid of the gatekeepers when the Conservatives come to power, we will not even need the English word. We will no longer have gatekeepers, who prevent us from building affordable housing units, block our energy production and make it difficult for our farmers to feed us.
    The policies of mayors on the far left, New Democrats and Liberals, are preventing us from building houses. As a result, it takes far longer to get a construction permit here in Canada than in any other OECD country except Slovakia. Here, getting any kind of construction permit takes an average of 250 days. In North Korea, you can get a permit in 28 days.



    What has this meant? It has meant higher costs to produce energy, higher costs for our farmers and higher costs for home building. More money chasing fewer goods always means higher prices, so instead of creating cash, we need to create more of what cash buys.
    Now, though, in the time when energy prices are rising, the last thing we need is a new tax increase on our people. Look at what is happening in Newfoundland. The Newfoundland premier, and he is a Liberal, said that a year ago today, the maximum price of furnace oil in the province was 97¢ per litre. Today it is a buck fifty-five, which is an increase of nearly 60%. The proposed federal carbon tax increase would mean an extra 17¢, plus HST. He also said, “Added to today's price, [the carbon tax] would result in a total cost increase of 80 per cent compared to one year ago.” That is from a Liberal premier.
    Similar problems are raging right across Atlantic Canada, where 40% of people are living in energy poverty. This is in Canada, a G7 energy-producing country. That is the result of seven years of the Liberal government. Similar crises are emerging across the country. One energy analyst said that Canadians can expect price increases on their home heating of 100%, all to pay for a plan to triple the carbon tax on Canadians.
    By the way, the carbon tax has not worked to reduce emissions. The government has failed to hit a single solitary climate target with its tax so far. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was saying that he knows he has not hit any of his promises, but he promises to hit them in the future and this time he promises not to break that promise.
    I can tell members one thing. I am not prepared to gamble on that. I am not prepared to watch Canadian seniors living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia, who are forced to heat with oil and propane, pay a 100% increase in their home heating bill because the Prime Minister is promising not to break his promise, a promise he has broken every time he has ever made it before. That is not a bet I am prepared to make.
    Therefore, I am calling on the government to allow its members from these rural communities to vote with us on this motion, to put aside the centralized control of the tax-hungry Prime Minister and vote with us in favour of this motion. If they cannot be disabused of their ideological obsession with taxing Canadians to punish them with the carbon tax, at the very least will they, in the spirit of non-partisanship and compromise, take the tax off of home heating as winter is coming? The cold will soon be upon us, and Canadians will soon be forced into the decision between heating and eating.
    Will they at least have the compassion to side with this common sense coalition? Will they break off from their costly coalition with the NDP, stop punishing Canadians and finally end the high-carbon hypocrisy, which sees a Prime Minister jetting around the country in a private aircraft, including flying down to Costa Rica for a sunny vacation right in the middle of the summer?
     When the winter is upon us, when people are not even worried about being on beaches, let us not tax them. Let us allow them to heat their homes here in our country.
    Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the leader of the Conservative Party, today's leader anyway, that it was not that long ago, about a year ago, when 338 Conservative candidates were knocking on doors with an election platform that made it very clear to Canadians that the Conservative Party of Canada supported a price on pollution. I am sure today's leader of the Conservative Party would remember that commitment, the promise Conservatives made to Canadians as part of their election platform.
    Today we now see the leader of the Conservative Party breaking that promise. He is now telling Canadians that the Conservative Party is going back on that, siding with the climate deniers, and not supporting a price on pollution. Could he explain the flip-flop on this policy?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!


    I can hear other members trying to answer the question, and I would ask them to hold back. I know the hon. leader of the official opposition is well able to respond to the question being asked.
    The hon. leader of the official opposition has the floor.
    Madam Speaker, of course the question is based on a totally false premise, but worse than that, it is based on the worst of Liberal elitist snobbery.
    For them to look down on the little old lady in rural Newfoundland or rural Nova Scotia because she is heating her home in February and call her a polluter, while the Prime Minister has forced that same little old lady to pay, through her taxes, for him to get on a gas-guzzling private jet, fly around the country for photo ops, burn more fuel in a single month than 20 Canadians burn all year, and go to Costa Rica on that same jet, is the worst high-carbon hypocrisy. It is an insult to Canadians.


    Madam Speaker, I am always amazed—
    I have to interrupt the hon. member, because it seems that some other members are under the false impression that it is their turn to speak. I would ask them to stop talking.
    The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
    Madam Speaker, I am rather amazed to see how much my Conservative friends are off the mark when it comes to the economy. They are telling us that lowering the carbon tax will help Canadians live better. However, the opposite is true. The carbon tax is meant to fight climate change. It is not a perfect tool, but it is one of the best tools we have right now, according to the experts.
    I would like to inform the leader of the Conservatives of what the UN says about the carbon tax. According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, the number of climate-related natural disasters has more than doubled in the past decade compared with the 1980s. According to the World Meteorological Organization, between 2000 and 2019, 6,700 disasters cost the lives of more than 1 million people and affected 4.2 million more. In addition, they caused almost $3 trillion in global economic losses. That is why the carbon tax exists.
    Madam Speaker, first, I find it funny that the Bloc Québécois, which is supposed to be separatist, is now in favour of a federal government that is imposing a triple tax on the provinces. It is true. Every day, the Bloc Québécois stands in the House of Commons to ask for a stronger federal government. We are the ones who want to give Quebeckers the opportunity to be masters of their own house.
    Second, the hon. member says that climate change is important. Yes, that is true, and that is why we need to put an end to policies that are not really working. It is not by increasing the cost of traditional energies that we will fight climate change, it is by reducing the cost of alternative energies. That is what we will do by encouraging hydroelectricity, nuclear power and the production of electric batteries here in Canada.
    We seem to be having some back and forth. The Bloc Québécois had a chance to ask a question. There was no reason to keep shouting while the hon. Leader of the Opposition was answering.
    The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.


    Madam Speaker, indeed, 40% of people in Canada are living in energy poverty, yet the oil and gas sector made $147 billion last year. This second quarter alone, profits for the national resources went up by $3.5 billion. Suncor Energy shows the same trend, with another $3.9 billion in the second quarter.
    Does the leader of the official opposition have the courage to actually tackle the real root causes of this impending recession and the high cost of living?
    It is impossible for me to speak with those guys continuing to chirp, Madam Speaker.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!


    I do want to again remind the members to please hold off on speaking when someone else has the floor.
    I would ask the hon. member to please wrap up, because we are out of time.
    Madam Speaker, does the leader of the official opposition have the courage to tackle big oil and gas profits and support our policy to introduce an excess profit tax to fund the GST rebates on home heating costs?
    Madam Speaker, if the NDP member is so unhappy with the way things are going in Canada, why is he supporting the Liberal government that is making it so?
    He and his costly coalition have supported the government greed that has hoovered up the money that Canadians worked so hard to earn. That costly coalition has caused today's inflation. That costly coalition will make it worse by tripling the tax.
    If he is not happy with how badly his people are suffering, then why does he stay part of that coalition?
    I understand and respect that there are differing views on this. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question and if he has other questions, he should get up at the appropriate time and not yell back and forth when someone is trying to answer the question. I also saw members of the official opposition trying to help out. If a member has not been recognized, please do not yell across the way and do not participate in the debate until it is the member's time to do so.
    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to add my voice in support of fighting to exempt all forms of home heating fuel from the carbon tax for all Canadians.
    This week, we have heard a lot from all sides about the pain Canadians suffer as unjust inflation and the cost-of-living crisis make life absolutely unaffordable in Canada.
    From a single mother skipping meals just to be able to feed her kids to a tradesman renting an apartment with his parents and still not being able to afford gas for his truck to seniors living on a fixed income and staring down the triple carbon tax, people are not sure if they can heat their homes or even keep them.
    We hear from the Liberals and the NDP that Canada is in a much better position than the rest of the G7, yet the Bank of Canada is tied with the U.S. for the highest interest rates today.
    What is worse is that it is widely expected that the bank will raise the key interest rate by another 75 basis points. That means we are looking at the interest rate being 4%. That is a 4% increase Canadians are forced to pay to borrow money or get a mortgage.
    Why are there higher interest rates? To combat the unjust inflation created by the government's out-of-control spending. After an over $300-billion deficit in the fiscal year 2020-21 and an almost $100-billion deficit last year, the Liberals have been spending non-stop.
    In 2021, the Conservative leader warned the government that its spending would cause inflation. Instead of heeding his warning, the finance minister claimed that Canada would actually see deflation. When inflation started spiking, she said it would be transitory. Boy, was she wrong.
    The Toronto Star is now reporting that she has started to see the light. The finance minister told colleagues that in order to fund the Prime Minister's additional spending, cuts to other areas of government spending were needed.
    Spending is not the only issue though. Yesterday, the finance minister admitted that with more stimulus money in circulation, there would be more demand for a limited supply of goods and services. In short, too many dollars chasing too few goods.
    In the context of today's motion, the supply of LNG and other heating fuels are very relevant examples. When the government was elected in 2015, there were 15 LNG projects. Now, seven years later, none have been completed.
    The same can be said for the Teck mine in Fort McMurray, the TMX pipeline, the northern gateway pipeline, energy east pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline.
    On this side, we all know the value of Canadian gas. The world needs more Canadian oil and gas. Alberta has some of the most responsibly developed, produced and transported energy products. The oil and gas companies operating in Canada are the most significant contributors and developers of new clean technology to decrease their emissions.
    Their innovation and use of green technology make Canadian oil and gas far more responsible than the dictator oil that the Liberals would instead bring in. Instead of Canadian energy being produced, refined and consumed in Canada, tankers of dirty Saudi oil are flowing down the St. Lawrence.
    The government's dependence on foreign oil means that we send our dollars to the very OPEC-plus cartel that colludes with Russia to reduce the production of their energy products to drive down supply. At the same time, demand increases, causing record profits for countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.
    It is not like Canada does not have other countries needing our oil and gas. For example, just this summer, when the Prime Minister made excuses for not having a business case to ship Canadian LNG to Germany, the German chancellor asked our country to increase shipments.
    The Liberals did not even show the chancellor any Canadian LNG projects. Instead, they talked about hydrogen.
     Hydrogen is a clean and practical option in which Canada needs to continue to invest. However, replacing LNG with hydrogen is years away and currently impossible.
    Instead of capitalizing on economic opportunities to increase the production of Canadian energy and fight the OPEC-plus cartel, the government sided with the “leave it in the ground” left and backed Canada into a corner.
    Instead of lowering energy costs for Canadians, we are at the mercy of Liberal-made inflation, reduced supply and foreign dictators dictating oil and gas prices. The cost of groceries, gas and home heating are skyrocketing because the government has created an environment where prices are out of control, supply is lacking and taxes keep climbing.


    As the current government prepares to triple its carbon tax, Canadians continue to get hit with numbers like 37% inflation on natural gas and 48.7% on other fuels; 11.4% on groceries; 13.2% on gasoline; and an 8.3% increase in mortgage interest costs.
    In a recent report, RBC is expecting that, “Rising inflation and higher borrowing and debt servicing costs are expected to shave almost $3,000 from average purchasing power in 2023.”
    Let us suppose families are paying more for utilities, groceries, gas and mortgages. In this case, a $3,000 hit to their pocketbooks is absolutely devastating, especially with almost half of Canadians being $200 away from insolvency. Therefore, as we turn to the winter months when Canadians need to heat their homes, people are starting to make tough choices. Do they pay for gas or electricity bills to get heat, or pay for groceries, or even cover their mortgage payments. The fact that people in our country have to make that decision is a disgrace. That is why the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote to the government last month, asking for a carbon tax exemption on home heating fuels.
     Right now, inflated home heating bills are made up of roughly 20% of just carbon tax. After this year of inflation and the tripling of the carbon tax, that portion could increase to almost 60% of home heating costs per month. That is especially scary for Atlantic Canada, as fuel oils in Newfoundland are already up by 52.8%. According to yesterday's inflation numbers, in P.E.I. it is up 37.2%; 52% in Nova Scotia; and 45.4% in New Brunswick.
     Analysts are predicting that home heating bills could increase this winter from anywhere from 50% to 100%, and in some cases around the country even 300%. The Ontario Energy Board also indicated that Ontario natural gas prices could increase by more than 150% this month.
     Other Canadian premiers are also calling for the Liberals to cancel their tripling of the carbon tax as provinces fight for a better way to deal with climate change and lower prices for Canadians.
    This summer, Nova Scotia submitted a provincial plan to get out of the federal carbon tax, but the federal government outright rejected it.
     In Alberta, the province created the technology innovation and emissions reduction program. It puts a price on carbon for heavy emitters and the collected funds get reinvested in advancing technology and innovation to reduce omissions, such as carbon capture and sequestration.
     These are the types of advancements that Canada needs to replace the out-of-touch carbon tax. Punishing Canadians for heating their homes, driving to work or just eating is absolutely wrong.
     While the government continues to ignore its out-of-control spending and fails to address inflation or the need for development investment in Canadian energy projects, the least it can do is exempt hard-working Canadians from paying the carbon tax to heat their homes.
     Canadian energy production needs to be increased to grow the supply and lower prices.
    Winter is coming and the pocketbooks of Canadians are in the red. I ask all members to do the right thing and vote for this motion. I call on the government to have some decency, get off the necks of Canadians and cancel its plans to triple its carbon tax.


    Madam Speaker, both speakers from the Conservative Party have referenced the letter from the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not have a perfect memory, but it is a pretty good one. I remember when a Conservative premier in Newfoundland flew the Canadian flag upside down because of the way the province was being treated by a Conservative government in Ottawa. What makes this leader any different?
    Madam Speaker, let me tell the member the difference between the two leaders today. We have one leader, the Prime Minister, who continues to divide and blame Canadians for his failed policies, cancels energy projects that could provide the world with clean, responsible energy, and punishes Canadians because he keeps missing his own targets and fails to keep his own promises.
    Then we have a new Conservative leader who will stand up for hard-working Canadians, who will cancel the job-killing, crippling carbon tax and get clean Canadian energy to the rest of the world, which it deserves, lowering emissions and ensuring everyone has a job in our country.


    Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that I truly appreciate my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn. I really enjoy working with him.
    Now I have an idea for today's opposition day. I think I will ask the same question all day, and since I do not think I will ever get an answer, I will make a little video afterwards and post it on social media.
    I will therefore ask a very simple question. I have a feeling I will not get an answer, but you never know, I might luck out.
    When will the Conservatives speak out against the excess profits being made by oil and gas multinationals?


    Again, I have people who are trying to answer questions and it is not their position to do that at this point. If they are not recognized, I would ask them to hold off on their comments and keep them to themselves.
    The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
    Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member and have enjoyed working with him on the immigration committee.
    It is one thing to keep attacking our energy producers, but where was the government, or anyone else, when they were not making profits? What about when there was a downfall, when Canadian energy was suffering, when it was being replaced by dirty dictator oil? What about all those job losses for the hard-working Canadians who worked in that energy industry, including newcomers to this country, people from the LGBT community and people from BIPOC communities? What about those people? Who was standing up for them? It was the Conservatives and the Conservatives only. That is what we will continue to do.
    Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn mentioned the northern gateway pipeline, a proposed project that was widely opposed by first nations and municipalities. People from all walks of life—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Again, I have mentioned it on a number of occasions this morning. What is going to happen is that, for those who are constant offenders, I will not be recognizing them if they get up for questions and comments if they continue to do this. Please allow the hon. members who are acknowledged to speak, allow those I am recognizing to ask their questions and allow whoever is responsible to answer those questions without being interrupted.
    The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
    Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn mentioned the northern gateway pipeline, a proposed crude oil pipeline through northwest B.C. that was widely opposed by first nations, municipal governments and people from all walks of life. It would have pushed a crude oil pipeline through wild salmon watersheds and brought crude oil supertankers to the B.C. coast.
    From his speech, it sounded like it is the Conservative policy to try to reinstate such a project and to bring a crude oil pipeline back to northwest B.C. Could he confirm if that is indeed his party's intention should they be elected?


    Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. About 80% of first nations along the route wanted the project to take place.
    I am proud to stand with our new leader, who actually wants to see real reconciliation by partnering with first nation communities and giving them the sovereignty they deserve: economic sovereignty. This is what true reconciliation in this country looks like. I am proud to stand beside a leader who believes in that too.
    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I am going to be joining—
    I am going to get the hon. member for Kings—Hants to restart, given the amount of noise coming from this side of the House.
    The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
    Madam Speaker, it reminds me of my time playing hockey in loud barns, and I always enjoyed it.
    I will be splitting my with my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth.
    As the chair of the Atlantic Liberal caucus, I really welcome the opportunity to be here today and to provide some counter-narrative to what I just heard from the member for Carleton and the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
    What disappointed me the most was the fact that I listened to those speeches, which was 30 minutes of my life that I am not going to get back, and there were no solutions. The conversation was so broad. There was barely any talk of the actual text of the motion they put forward, and certainly no talk of Atlantic Canadians who actually need help and support.
    I will use my time here today to do two things. I will critique and offer some comments on the actual text of the motion, which is why we are here today. This is an opposition day motion. It is not binding on the government, but it provides a value proposition for us to debate. Then I am going to talk a little broader about the dynamic between reducing emissions, fighting climate change and supporting affordability, and it is that nuance that I did not hear from the opposition bench a minute ago. The Conservatives do not provide nuance, and they are certainly not providing solutions from what I have heard thus far.
    The first provision in the text of the motion reads, “one-tenth of Canadians heat their homes during Canada's cold winter months with heating oil or propane heat because there are no alternatives”.
    Let me say that I reject that premise, not that there is one out of 10 Canadians who use home heating oil or propane to heat their homes, but that there are no alternatives. Where is that suggestion coming from?
    We, of course, in Atlantic Canada are disproportionally still reliant on home heating fuels of that nature, but I have seen in my own riding where homes have been able to make the transition. They have been able to work with federal programs and some of the provincial energy efficiencies and maybe install a heat pump and take on initiatives, which not only helps to reduce their energy use but reduces emissions and puts more money back in their pockets. Therefore, my question to the official opposition would be this: Where does the narrative come from that there is no alternative, whatsoever? I think that is a false narrative, and it is not very helpful to the constructive conversation that we need to have today.
    The second provision in the text of the motion reads, “Canada is the only G7 country to have raised fuel taxes during this period of record high global fuel prices”.
    Again, it is a false narrative that is coming from the opposition benches. Yes, we have maintained a price on carbon. We fought an election just over a year ago with that exact plan of moving the carbon price forward, which is going to help return money, in areas where we have a federal backstop in place, to households and businesses.
    I reject the idea that a carbon price is a tax. The money and every single proceed that is collected is returned back to Canadians. This is not just simply something that is levied and comes into government revenue to support other types of social spending or programs. This money is returned. It is a price signal and it is a market signal.
    The ironic piece of all of this is that the Conservatives, just over a year ago, actually ran an election campaign to put a price on carbon, but here these members stand today saying that somehow that is not a good idea. What has changed over the past year? Why the flip-flop? We have seen it, and that is the trouble that I think many Canadians have. They do not really know what this Conservative Party stands for. I know they will have the opportunity over the next couple of months, probably over the next three years, to find out, but again, an important reflection for Canadians is that it was this opposition party that ran on a carbon price last time.
    The other point that is never reflected in the Conservative narrative is that the money is returned. We know that, where the federal backstop exists, eight out of 10 families are coming out further ahead at a household level. However, let me explain why this was all introduced. We introduced a price on carbon to incentivize behavioural change and to actually drive private sector solutions. The way this government introduced that policy in 2018 was to allow provinces and territories to develop their own plans. If they chose not to be a part of the pan-Canadian effort to reduce emissions in the fight against climate change, then a federal backstop would be imposed.


    That exists in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and of course we work with the provinces and territories to update plans as we move toward 2030 to meet our international targets. In provinces that have chosen not to participate, that have chosen not to put forward a provincial plan, our plan puts money back into households and businesses accordingly.
    I think the biggest flaw in the text, standing here as a member from Atlantic Canada, and I will be interested to see how the member from Newfoundland who sits on the opposition benches, as well as some of the other folks, address this, is that there is no application of carbon pricing on home heating fuel in Atlantic Canada. Let me repeat that: There is no carbon price application on home heating fuels in Atlantic Canada this winter.
    I would not suspect the member for Carleton or the member for Calgary Forest Lawn would be misleading the House, because that is not my job to do and I would never suggest that, but clearly they have not done their homework.
    The way this works is that provinces are putting forward plans. Those are currently under evaluation right now with the ministry of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and those are ongoing conversations. We do not know the results of those yet. Perhaps, as we have seen in other provinces such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, there might be a provincial plan approved. I do not have all the details and I do not stand here understanding exactly what the outcomes will be.
    However, even if there is a federal backstop implemented in one of those provinces, it will not start to apply to fuel until April 1. Therefore, for this narrative I suspect I will hear from the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame in Newfoundland, he better rewrite his notes because it will not apply to his residents this winter. Any narrative that somehow the Government of Canada is going to make people not be able to afford to fuel their homes this winter because of a carbon price is a completely false narrative. It is also premature, because we do not know the outcomes of those conversations.
    As I read the text of this motion perhaps the most disappointing but not surprising part is that there is no vision for transition. Yes, we recognize affordability is a top issue for Canadians right now, but there is no mention of the $250 million the government announced just a couple of weeks ago to help vulnerable Canadians transition off home heating fuel. I guess Conservatives do not believe in that because they think there are simply no alternatives. On this side of the House, we know there are alternatives, but there are some folks who cannot afford to make that transition themselves. That is why $125 million of that $250 million will be going to Atlantic Canada explicitly.
    Again, if someone is sitting at home right now listening to the opposition, of course, yes, no one in this House disagrees with wanting to support affordability. However, what is the Conservatives' plan for the longer term? What is the Conservatives' plan to help make sure that, in two years or three years if there is another global event that causes prices to rise, they can augment and stop that and help people make a transition? There is not one single word in any of the text. I did not hear anything from the member for Carleton, and I did not hear anything from the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. Hopefully there is more depth in the Conservative benches and we will hear something more of what they are actually going to propose for a solution for Atlantic Canadians, and indeed all Canadians, in the days ahead.
    Let us remind ourselves why there is a carbon price at all. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because the science is absolutely clear. We have a climate emergency. We need to be able to reduce emissions. In fact, we are a part of international agreements that set Canada's conditions to do so.
    The OECD says that carbon pricing is the lowest-cost alternative to help incentivize the private sector and households to make changes and to change behaviour to reduce emissions. I know Conservatives are not really fond of global institutions right now, whether it is the World Health Organization or the World Economic Forum. We saw a lot of that during the leadership campaign. It is problematic, frankly, but maybe they believe in the OECD.
    At the end of the day, Conservatives are not providing alternatives. They can propose amendments to the carbon pricing. I do not suggest it is a silver bullet, but there are no solutions on the other side. I wish I had more time, but I look forward to taking questions momentarily.


    Madam Speaker, the member from Nova Scotia knows full well that his struggling constituents cannot afford the upfront costs to convert from oil to heat pumps. They have to strip out their oil heating equipment. They have to cut up their oil tanks. It is going to cost them about $10,000, and they have to pay that up front. How can they afford it, with the Liberal-fuelled inflation that these constituents are dealing with?
    To my hon. colleague from over in the Annapolis Valley, can you explain to your constituents and to the rest of the people in Atlantic Canada the inverse relationship between your carbon tax policy and what we are seeing in the U.S., where they are lowering emissions with no tax policy? It does not make sense. When is it going to work?
    I just want to remind the hon. member that I am not going to answer that question. He needs to make sure that he directs the questions and comments through the Chair. Using the word “he” as opposed to the word “you” would be much more appropriate.
    The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
    Madam Speaker, let me reiterate a couple of things. Carbon pricing is not applying to home heating fuel this winter. We recognize that there are vulnerable households out there, as the member recognized, that need support to be able to make that transition. That is exactly why we put $250 million into provincial programs, to do just that: to support some of the lowest-income, most vulnerable Canadians who would be in his riding and in mine. I believe the number is somewhere around $22 million to Newfoundland and Labrador alone to help support that transition.
    This member opposite is providing no solutions. We are actually helping residents to make that transition and help reduce emissions at the same time. It is quite simple.


    Madam Speaker, last week in Washington, the Deputy Prime Minister said something a little troubling: “...we prepared to spend some domestic political capital in the name of economic security for our democratic partners.” That is rather surprising. She went on to say, “Canada [towards its allies] in fast-tracking, for example, the energy and mining projects our allies need...”.
    She appears to be saying that maybe Canada is preparing to build infrastructures to send natural gas to Europe, for example. It is rather surprising. We know that there is no social licence for this type of project in Quebec. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister's declaration.
    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question about the importance of Canada's natural resources sector. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. It is important that Canada provide natural resources such as hydrogen, liquefied natural gas and other renewable resources, such as food.
    Canada is rich in all of these resources. Given the global situation, it is now more important than ever that Canada supply these products to its allies. I therefore agree with our Deputy Prime Minister's remarks.



    Madam Speaker, people are struggling to feed themselves and to house themselves. The CEOs of big businesses are making big profits on their backs. The profits are so obscene that even the CEO of Shell is calling on the government to tax the excess profits of big oil and gas companies. The Liberals want to help people, but they refuse to force CEOs to pay what they owe. Why do the Liberals refuse to force CEOs to pay their dues to fund the GST exemption on home heating costs?
    Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows I have respect for him, but the reality is he asked a question about corporate contribution to broader policy objectives and then also CEO pay. If the member opposite thinks we should increase taxation on high-income Canadians, I am happy to have that conversation in a debate in this chamber.
    As it relates to oil and gas companies themselves, we are trying to incentivize them to make important investments to reduce the carbon intensity associated with their products, such that the Canadian oil and gas sector will have a future in 2050 for the smaller market that is going to exist globally.
    It is important for Canada's competitiveness in this space to be able to reduce our emissions intensity. We are trying to incentivize the oil and gas companies to make that investment, similar to the $25 billion that was done just this past week.
    Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to speak today, because we are talking about two issues that are so important to Canadians right across our country. These issues are affordability and climate change. The fact is that our country is warming at twice the global average. The north is warming three times as fast.
    We are feeling the impacts of climate change right across this country. It is something that impacts people on a very personal level, as it impacts their homes and their livelihoods. It is also something that impacts our economy if we do not position ourselves to be the leader that we can be and that we are working to be right now, a leader in a low-carbon economy. That is where the world of opportunity lies for us: averting natural disasters and building a strong economy.
    That is what we are doing. Along with that, we are building sustainable jobs for the future. That is why we need to invest and make sure we continue to work toward that low-carbon economy. That is where the sustainable jobs, the ones that will be there for generations to come, will be.
    The issue is that for a country of 36 million people, Canada is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases. To fight climate change, to be competitive economically, like I have mentioned, we need to take action on climate change across all sectors of our economy, and we have to do it in a way that is fair and affordable for Canadians.
    Scientific evidence shows that human-induced climate change has already had widespread and adverse effects. We have seen that in our country. We have seen it with floods, we have seen it with droughts and we have seen it with heat domes. All of these are having impacts right now, right across our country, yet Conservative politicians have been fighting climate action for years. That is literally why we face increased costs in cleanup from all of those disasters that I am talking about. In fact, wildfires right now in B.C. are creating all sorts of havoc. Those are only going to increase if we do not take action now. That is why we are committed to doing it.
    As climate impacts intensify, it is all the more important and it is all the more obvious why we have to move to a clean net-zero emissions economy, to protect Canadians and the prosperity of Canadians going forward.
    I am going to keep repeating that point, because with Conservatives bringing this motion, I think it is very important that they recognize that this is not just about environment and climate change. It absolutely is, but it is also about our economic future. It is about the sustainable jobs in all of our communities; good paying ones. Those are our opportunities and those are what we are trying to protect and create.
    In recognition of these scientific and economic imperatives, Canada has set ambitious climate targets. In 2021, Canada enhanced its 2030 nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels. The government also committed to achieving net zero by 2050, and last June, Canada passed the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The purpose of the act is to increase transparency and accountability as Canada works towards net-zero emissions by 2050.
    The emissions reductions plan, which I may refer to as the ERP sometimes, just because it is faster and easier to do that, is about achieving incremental GHG emissions to reach Canada's 2030 targets. It is about putting in place foundational measures to ensure not only that Canada's future is carbon neutral, but also that energy alternatives are more affordable and create sustainable job opportunities for workers.
     Now, the Conservatives who have brought this motion today can pretend that they have been on the side of fighting energy poverty, but Canadians have been riding this roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years and Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins for oil and gas producers. The only way we are actually going to eliminate energy poverty and reduce household energy costs is by having true energy security by fighting climate change and making sure we are helping Canadians to get there, that we are helping Canadians to make the retrofits and to take advantage of energy-efficient measures right across the country. That is what the emissions reductions plan is there to do. It has a suite of mitigation measures based on the foundation of the 2016 pan-Canadian framework and the 2020 strengthened climate plan, considering the best available science, indigenous knowledge and the advice of the net-zero advisory body.


    It is about listening to the experts across all sectors, to make sure we get this right.
    Achieving Canada's climate objectives will be a whole-of-economy and a whole-of-society effort. When I talk about this, we are going to talk a bit more about the ERP. It includes new federal investments and supports across all sectors. When we are talking about these economy-wide measures, it includes one of the issues that has been raised today, the price on carbon pollution across the country, which is one of the cornerstones of Canada's economy-wide measures.
    It is a market mechanism. That is why I always find it so fascinating when I hear Conservatives argue against carbon pricing. It is, in fact, a market mechanism. I am not sure why a party that says it supports market measures would be opposed to us doing exactly that: putting in a piece that works with the market on this.
    Let me take it one step further. The part that is important about the federal climate action, our pricing of carbon pollution, is that in a backstop province, the money goes back to the people in that community.
    For example, people in a backstop province, like mine in Ontario, actually, just last week, got a climate action incentive payment back. None of this stays with the federal government. Not a penny of it stays with the federal government. It goes back to the province where it was collected, and it goes back to the individuals who were paying it. That is very important, because I think that point gets lost sometimes in this debate.
    I want to highlight that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, when looking at this, said not only, as we say all the time, that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back in this system than they paid, but also something else that I find very important, which is that the people who are not getting as much back tend to be the people with the most disposable income. That was the other thing the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. I think this is important when we are talking about affordability. We are talking about the fact that actually, the way the climate action incentive works, more money is paid back.
    Basically, when we look at it the way the Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at it, people with the greatest need actually get more back, on average, when we look at the system.
    I wanted to talk about some of the other measures in the ERP as we are going through it, and I am sorry that I jumped around a bit, but I get passionate about this issue because I care deeply about it.
    The ERP is recapitalizing the low-carbon economy fund. The investment includes the creation of a new indigenous leadership fund to support clean energy and energy-efficiency projects led by first nations, Métis and Inuit communities and organizations.
    As for our buildings, we never talk about the building sector enough in this place, but in the city of Toronto, which is my home city, buildings are our largest sources of emissions. We are going to have to tackle that. That is why we are developing a “net zero by 2050” building strategy to support the massive retrofit of the building stock needed to reach our climate targets. It also means putting in place contributions and loan funding to support the low-income stream of the greener homes grant program. I know that in my home city, and I hear about it when I am talking with people in other places as well, people are benefiting from this to make their homes more energy-efficient.
    There is also funding to support deep retrofits of large buildings. This was actually support for community housing, social housing, in cities and other locations receiving supports through this kind of a program.
    The other part that is really important is that just recently we announced funding to help people move from oil to heat pumps. That is funding that will support, in large part, homes in Atlantic Canada, but it is targeted to people with lower incomes. We recognize that affordability is a top issue for Canadians.
    Right now, it is a hard time around the world. It is a hard time for Canadians. That is why we are here to work for them. At the same time, we are not going to lose sight of the need to take action on climate change.


    Madam Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's intervention on the opposition day motion, it seems to me she is having a “let them eat cake” moment. She did not really speak to the motion, which is that the government's policies are creating massive inflation that is causing people in my community and my province to have to choose between heating and eating.
    If members do not know what heating from oil looks like, they can look at my visual here. It costs more than $1,000 now to fill an oil tank. It has gone up 52% since the summer, and over 53% of Nova Scotians heat this way.
    Could the parliamentary secretary actually address the issue of the day, which is why she and her government will not give a break on home heating taxes so people in my province do not have to choose between heating and eating?
    I want to remind the member that, while we prefer a neutral background, he can be wherever he wants to be. However, when putting a point across, he cannot refer to what is in the background.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary.
    Madam Speaker, I did talk about the fact that affordability is a key issue for Canadians right now. Inflation around the world is very high, and Canada is below many of the other countries. We are seeing a slight decrease, but inflation is absolutely a top issue. That is why we are putting in extra supports to help Canadians. We are doing that with doubling the GST credit. We are trying to do that now with dental care and rental supports, and I am hoping that on those pieces, the Conservatives are going to stand up to help.
    My question for the member opposite is whether he is going to help support people in his community by voting for the rental supports and dental care, so his constituents could take advantage of those programs.


    Madam Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean asked a Conservative member a question after his speech. He asked him whether the Conservative Party and he himself were going to denounce and condemn the enormous profits generated by oil and gas companies. I would like to ask my colleague across the aisle the same question.
    Does the government intend to denounce and condemn the enormous and indecent profits generated by oil and gas companies? If so, what does he intend to do to correct the situation?


    Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked me this question.
    There is something we do not often talk about here: the fact that there is a fee system in place and that energy companies pay fees. They pay them in their province. It is not true that, when they make more profits, they do not pay more fees. They do.
    I think that it is also important to note our government's move to impose higher taxes on banks and companies. We are thinking about that, but our attention is always focused on how we can help Canadians. That is what we do every day, in particular with our bills aimed at giving them tax credits and offering dental care support.


    Madam Speaker, people need help now. One of the things she said that was really concerning was about buildings. I agree with her that we need to retrofit buildings to help mitigate the climate crisis, but we also need to help people now. She gave the date of 2050, but people need help right now.
    I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary will support the NDP, which is the only party willing to state it, in going after CEOs and big oil companies to get them to pay their share so we can pay for retrofits now. Families need help now.
    Madam Speaker, we are working on a green building strategy that would provide supports to Canadians right now as some first steps, and we are going to continue to build on that. Environment Canada announced a program that will help Canadians who have lower incomes to retrofit their homes from oil heating to heat pumps. There is a greener homes grant, as well as other programs. In fact, other programs are being delivered not directly through the federal government but through cities, and I would be happy to work with the member opposite on more of that.


    Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
    Today's motion is yet another attempt by the Conservatives to address a real problem that is of great concern to our fellow Canadians, inflation, through solutions that are not. The Conservatives are very good at proposing false solutions by promising that they will relieve the public of inflation.
    On their last opposition day, they outright proposed suspending the carbon tax. That proposal would not help Canadians deal with a global inflation issue. In proposing to suspend the carbon tax, they are trying to help a single sector, oil and gas. Meanwhile, the recent spike in the price of crude has greatly benefited oil companies.
    The Conservatives use the problem of inflation, witch affects all consumer goods and has repercussions on all households, to achieve a single goal, that of discrediting the polluter pays principle and eliminating the carbon tax. As soon as the Conservatives see an opportunity, they try to seize it, always for the same goal, to eliminate the tax on pollution.
    It was disheartening to see that the Conservative motion introduced on a recent opposition day distorted the results of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis. Let us make one thing perfectly clear right off the bat: The tax is not currently causing a loss for 60% of households.
    Today's motion quotes the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and alludes to a total increase of 80%. However, that increase is for 2030, not for right now. By that time, our behaviours will have changed, evolved and progressed, and the economy will be more stable.
    In addition, the tax is still progressive because of the rebate. Low-income families will see a net gain. The fact is that four out of five Canadians will receive more money than they will have paid in carbon tax. Maybe the reason the official opposition is proposing this is that the real solutions are more complex and require some thought about how to create wealth while respecting the environment, and especially about how to share that wealth.
    Most of the Conservatives' solutions would deprive the government of revenue. It is taxpayers' money, the people's money, that we are managing. At the end of the day, the Conservative motion will not give people a stable increase in income, force companies to pay their fair share of taxes, or make banks and multinational corporations pocket less money.
    One of the Bloc Québécois's goals is to ensure that multinational corporations pay their fair share. We do not deny the fact that inflation is real, rampant and widespread, affecting every sector, including housing, food and transportation. These times require more comprehensive measures than today's populist motion.
    Rather than looking for positive solutions for the months and years to come, the Conservatives are taking advantage of Halloween and trying to frighten people. On September 7, the Bank of Canada increased its key rate for a fifth time, to 3.25%. For consumers, we know that this new key rate increase will result in higher interest and mortgage rates. At the same time, wages are catching up to inflation, a sign that the labour shortage is increasingly forcing employers to loosen the purse strings. We are seeing that some of them can afford to pay their employees higher wages.
    It was mid-September before the Liberal government decided to actually talk about inflation. There was nothing concrete in the budget last spring to address the main concern of Canadians, nor was there anything new in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech on June 16 before the Empire Club on Bay Street in Toronto.
    On September 13, the government came back to earth and announced an increase in the GST credit, doubling it for six months. Better late than never. The government also announced that it would pay $500 in support to less affluent renters.
    Inflation related to COVID‑19 revealed weaknesses in the economy that must be corrected. The current inflation is largely caused by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine and many imbalances in supply and demand are cyclical. I will name just a few: demand going up and down, with very strong recovery following the lockdowns; changes in consumer behaviour to which production is struggling to adjust; production interrupted by outbreaks; dysfunction in the global supply chain, and more.


    The global supply chain is struggling to adjust and, in many cases, regional outbreaks and lockdowns have amplified the problem by interrupting production. These events alone reveal the weaknesses of our commercial systems, their failings. When the links of a supply chain are completely relocated and there are lockdowns and slowdowns in production, repercussions will be unavoidable. Families now need to make sacrifices at the grocery store.
    Some of these causes are environmental. Yes, there are supply issues associated with COVID‑19 that have piled on to an already fragile situation, but there are also droughts and fires that have led to poor harvests in western Canada and the southern United States, driving up prices. Heatwaves lead to major agricultural losses, threats to aquatic life, water shortages, fires and, as a result, larger grocery bills and a decrease in river trade. All this is attributable to the climate crisis and, of course, the war in Ukraine.
    All the conditions have been in place for several months for energy costs to explode around the world. Demand had fallen before the pandemic, driving prices down. The current increase is a form of catch-up, but oil prices are chronically unstable. There is a lot of speculation about oil prices, which causes endless crises. The best way to prevent this is to reduce our dependence on oil and gas.
    Quebec is not currently subject to the federal carbon tax, in effect since April 1, 2019, because Quebec was proactive and imposed a form of price on pollution by taking part in the carbon market with California. As a result, Quebec is not affected by the Conservative motion and, let us be clear, no new federal tax will apply to heating invoices for Quebec households. However, that has not prevented thousands of citizens from reflecting on their dependence on oil and gas.
    I would like to talk about Ms. Thériault in the Eastern Townships, who is lucky to be in good health at the age of 92. She lives at home, never owned a car, always got around by public transit and decided six years ago to remove the heating oil tank from her property. In doing so, she saved money. In less than two years, the cost of the transition was covered. The savings are enormous. No more dependence on the oil market.
     I will say it again. I know that it will probably make some colleagues sick and that their skin may crawl a bit, but we need to work to get away from oil. Why? Because climate change is the greatest threat to our lives. The government must encourage the transformation of heating systems in businesses and private residences.
    François Delorme, a professor of economics at the University of Montreal, said, “The harms of pollution in terms of public health and respiratory diseases have been well established. There is a public cost to our private decisions to use gasoline.... No one likes paying taxes, but people need to understand that this particular tax funds public services and renewable energy.”
    By taxing gasoline, we obtain resources to encourage people to turn to greener solutions. In 2019, studies already showed that a carbon tax similar to Canada's had allowed some European countries to increase the size of the economy and the number of jobs. That contradicts a number of preconceptions. The purpose of this tax is to influence people's behaviour. With gas prices rising, we want to see a reduction in consumption, just like for junk food or tobacco. That is what Mr. Delorme reminds us of. Ms. Thériault lives in Quebec and, for her, simply seeing the heating oil bill go up pushed her to act.
    Right now, the Bloc Québécois is proposing real solutions to relieve the main victims of inflation. It is proposing long-term solutions: increase old age security to maintain the purchasing power of seniors, offer financial support to people on low incomes, implement programs to support those most affected by sudden price increases. I know my colleagues will give other examples as well.
    It is possible to make the economy more resilient if the structural weaknesses that cause inflation are addressed. To that end, we need to reduce dependency on oil and gas, address the labour shortage, encourage more local production, and begin major construction, particularly for social housing.
    If the members truly want the government to help Canadians, we encourage them to approve the solutions put forward by the Bloc Québécois.


    These are more equitable solutions that would in turn best distribute wealth. Let us set aside the demagoguery and avoid misleading the public with false truths. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but certainly not to their own facts.


    Madam Speaker, back in 2015, governments all around the world went to Paris, where an agreement about climate action was achieved. At the time, the idea and the principles of a price on pollution were widely accepted throughout the world. Even here in Canada they were widely accepted.
    Today, when I reflect on how important it is to recognize the principles of a price on pollution, I see them as really good, not only for our local communities and our nation, but for the world as a whole. However, we have the official opposition party here in Canada reversing its position from the last election, saying it no longer supports the principles of a price on pollution.
    Could the member provide her thoughts on how that statement has a profound impact here?


    Madam Speaker, personally, I would like the Conservative opposition, and this is not the first time I am appealing to its members, to join the 21st century. We cannot keep doing what we have always done, because we know the damage it causes to our health, to the public and to biodiversity.
    I am appealing to the Conservatives yet again to join the 21st century and move forward to ensure that the people, but especially the businesses, who pollute are finally taxed under a polluter pay system, starting with businesses.


    Madam Speaker, my home region is very rural. What would my colleague say to a family father or mother who needs to travel every day? There is no public transit for people to get to work, or go the grocery store or attend activities with their children.
    What would she say, in light of the increased costs associated with the current taxes?
    Madam Speaker, first of all, no one has any power over transportation and the price of oil. It is decided in London and New York, and it fluctuates up and down. There was even a book published to try to explain oil speculation. No one can understand it. On that point, the price of oil is not up to us and it is out of our control.
    That being said, the Bloc Québécois has solutions. I talked about a few earlier. For example, the government needs to increase old age security to preserve seniors' purchasing power. That would also enable them to get around. We need to give direct financial support to people with low incomes and provide a support program for those who are most affected by the sudden increase in gas prices, namely farmers, taxi drivers and truckers. The Bloc Québécois came up with all of these solutions because it has a more long-term vision.


    Madam Speaker, I have so much respect for my colleague. I work with her on the all-party climate caucus.
    One thing the Conservatives do not want to talk about is the record profits of the bank industry, of grocery chains and of oil and gas. To interpret that for the Conservatives, it is called triple, triple, triple greed. That is just to help them understand what I am talking about.
    I am going to talk about the motion. I agree with the member that the polluter pay model is absolutely critical for tackling climate change, but maybe we can relieve some pressure on Canadians by removing the GST portion on home heating. Would my colleague agree that this is a good step forward to help people tackle the pressures they are under right now with inflation?


    Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, that does not affect Quebec. Our heating costs are not going to increase, because we have a carbon exchange.
    There is something else or another element that could be relevant, and that is energy efficiency. In Quebec, we have Hydro‑Québec's innovative projects program to develop high-performance energy-efficient real estate projects. That is another way to move away from oil.
    We also have the energy transition master plan, which will make $12.7 billion in investments by 2026 to help people transition away from oil. Those are some solutions we could think about when looking to the future.
    Madam Speaker, long-time members are used to seeing the parties, when tabling bills or presenting motions on opposition day, do a sort of brief reading as a preview, to give an idea what it will be about.
    Unfortunately, when I looked at the motion today, I thought that the Conservatives had to know that a lot of members tend to do that. The motion lists all kinds of things that are much like half-truths. They thought people would repeat all of them, one after the other, and would present the information. I may be wrong, but this time, for that reason, I will not do that.
    In fact, I find it unfortunate that the facts are being somewhat twisted and situations exaggerated. I am not saying that no one is having problems with the cost of heating. Mainly, what I find is that the Conservative Party seems to be increasingly interested in blowing things out of proportion. Instead of wanting to debate substantive issues, they want to find anecdotal topics.
    Another thing I deplore is that the Conservatives constantly revisit the same topics. It seems like every question period is the same. That is pretty much the case today. Every time we have an opposition day we feel we have gone through it before. In 2022, the Conservatives are still stuck in the same place. Maybe they will evolve in 2023. I hope so for their sake.
     I think the debate is about the last part of the motion, not the long preamble that might take half my speaking time to read. The motion asks that “the House express its agreement with the comments of the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and call on the government to exempt all forms of home heating fuel from the carbon tax for all Canadians.”
    Here, in the wording of the motion—and this is just the last little bit—things are being twisted a bit. We can see that the Conservatives are using the fact that the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote to the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada as a confrontational tool. It is not the worst we have seen, but I would say it is not exactly a very subtle tactic.
    A little further into the motion, there is a mention of an exemption for home heating fuel. We understand that, when Conservatives talk about “home heating” and “carbon tax”, they are talking about heating oil and gas. As we know, there are Conservatives who defend one industry, and that can only be the oil and gas industry.
    This is what really needs to be understood from the motion. The Conservatives have found another way to put forward a proposal to support the fossil fuel industry, the oil industry, which, unfortunately, is effectively an industry of the past. It seems that the Conservatives just cannot wrap their heads around that.
    That is sad, because they seem to be obsessed with oil and gas. It seems like that is all they can think about when they get up in the morning. I think that they put oil in their coffee and have lunch and dinner with oil; I do not know. It really seems to be an obsession. I was elected in 2015, seven years ago, and I cannot remember a single question period when there were no questions from the Conservatives about oil. I think that is their only topic.
    For example, take the war in Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine. As a solution, the Conservatives began saying more oil was needed. Right now, there is an inflationary crisis and the Conservatives are trying to find ways to say that we need more oil. When we have a recession, because a lot of economists are predicting a recession—hopefully it will not be too severe—I am convinced that their solution will still be more oil.
    Earlier, I said that it seemed like the Conservatives eat oil, but unfortunately, most of us breathe it. We breathe the fumes from these fossil fuels in our daily lives. Because the climate is also affected, the entire planet is grappling with global warming.
    We do not hear much from the Conservatives on that. It would be interesting to hear them talk more about it, because it has a real impact on people’s lives. This costs billions of dollars. True, when we pay our bills at the end of the month or receive our paycheque, we never see anything saying “climate bill”, unfortunately.


    Maybe we should find ways to say it more so it will be clearer. Maybe that would help the Conservatives understand that this phenomenon really exists and has a real cost for our society. When there are people with respiratory issues, I do not think it is a good idea to put more money into the oil and gas industry and encourage it even more. When there are species going extinct and our biodiversity is threatened, I do not think it is a good idea to cut down more trees and smother nature.
    I have not been to Alberta yet, but I am really looking forward to going there one day. However, I have seen pictures and news reports, and it did not look like very joyful. I wonder what we will have to do in the future to fix all the damage and clean up the mess that has been created there. For example, bodies of water that are used for drinking water have become completely toxic and are now off-limits to the public. That really worries me. Animals are being poisoned by that water. The contamination will also end up in the water table, and people will be poisoned. When the green transition is complete, there will still be problems from the past to deal with.
    I wish the Conservatives would offer up solutions and proposals that are look forward, not backward. For example, they often say we need to find a way for people to have more money in their pockets in the short term. However, the Conservatives' solutions for achieving that always revolve around encouraging dirty industries. Could they come up with suggestions that involve funding or supporting clean industries instead?
    That would be nice. We would be more open to listening to proposals like that. As members know, in Quebec, we rely heavily on hydroelectricity and increasingly on wind energy. We are also looking at other modes of energy production, but we are trying to avoid fossil fuels as much as possible.
    The Conservative motion mentions the Premier of Newfoundland. Historically, we have seen Newfoundland take legal action and start feuds with Quebec to prevent us from fully executing our projects. For example, rather than use Hydro-Québec's lines, they demand a line funded by the federal government. Then they end up on the brink of bankruptcy with their projects, instead of trying to collaborate with us. It is sad.
    It is sad, considering that there are solutions out there. For instance, we have electricity that we could supply to people in other parts of the world. It is very likely that we will be supplying electricity to the United States. We already do, but we will supply more. We supply some to Ontario, but perhaps we would like to supply more. The Conservatives do not talk about it, but the Ontario premier who is showing less and less appetite for Quebec hydroelectricity is not a Liberal. He is a Conservative. That is sad, because hydroelectricity is a much greener solution than oil and gas.
    It might be worth looking into solutions like these, where Quebec could play a role and maybe even help the Canadian provinces decarbonize. Would that not be amazing? Quebec could help the other provinces and the planet, instead of watching the constant push toward gas, oil and the oil sands that will end up poisoning us all. I do not think the Conservatives' solution is the right one.
    I also have not heard the Conservatives talk about the increases in gas prices. They are talking about possible tax hikes, but those hikes do not exist in Quebec. Gas prices are going up because the oil companies are lining their pockets. The Conservatives have never suggested investigating the oil companies, their profits, or the oil cartel that is going on.
    Unfortunately, we should really be asking why all prices are going up at the same time everywhere. Why is no one able to explain the relationship between the price at the pumps, the price of extraction and international phenomena? What we often see is that prices go up at Christmas. They go up at the start of vacation season. Sometimes, prices go up on Monday mornings too, and there is no good reason for that either. All of this is to say that it would be nice to see the Conservatives come up with some useful, meaningful ideas, instead of backward-looking suggestions.
    In closing, we see that the Liberals seem inclined to support them. Countries often base their policies on their interests, and unfortunately, Canada is an oil-producing country.



    Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right, Quebec has, quite frankly, led the way when it comes to clean energy.
    Ontario, Quebec and California signed on to the first cap-and-trade deal. It is extremely unfortunate that the first thing a Conservative premier did in Ontario when he was elected was to bail on that agreement. However, what we have seen in the last four and a half years since that happened is that Quebec has continued to innovate and look at more creative ways to deliver and provide electricity, while Ontario has literally been stagnant for the last four years. We see the results in the electrification of the EV grid in Quebec, for example, which is light years ahead of Ontario.
    Could the member provide further examples of how Quebec could demonstrate to the rest of the province how to produce electricity and share that technology throughout our country?


    Madam Speaker, I would like to add a few things to what my colleague opposite has just said. I think he made a comment rather than ask a question, but I am pleased with what he said.
    In my view, it is not enough to say that we have to turn to the future, we also have to be enthusiastic about it. Often, when we take the initiative and choose to engage collectively in a promising project, people lift their head, smile and want to be involved. When that dynamic is created, it increases the desire to create that change.
    On the other hand, when the members from the Conservative Party continue to encourage frustrations and an outdated view of things, they unfortunately reduce the possibility of looking to the future and create resistance to what needs to be done anyway. It is sad, because there is no enthusiasm and, instead of being economic precursors and winners, we run even more risk of being losers.


    Madam Speaker, I am concerned because the member seems to be really out of touch with reality.
    It is estimated that the oil and gas industry in Canada has invested $48 billion in public services in Canada. The members seems to not want to talk about one fact related to inflation. The two main causes of inflation are labour and energy. In my opinion, the member seems to agree that the cost of living is rising because of this government's desire to increase the tax on energy.
    Does he support the government's decision to increase the cost of living for Canadians?
    Madam Speaker, I do not think we are out of touch with reality in Quebec. The motion is related first and foremost to the carbon tax, which we are not overly familiar with in Quebec because it does not apply there. Perhaps the member was not aware of that.
    Since the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, its effect on inflation is quite minimal compared to what it could be elsewhere. However, there are several other structural mechanisms for combatting inflation that would help the people who really need it. The measures proposed today simply fund people who drive Hummers, for example, a very nice vehicle. There is even an electric version of it now; I encourage the member to buy one.
    Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech.
    Once again, the Conservatives seem to be missing the boat on the issues before the House. They have promised many times to cancel the GST on home heating. Today, instead of presenting a motion that would have limited the repercussions of rising heating prices, they are presenting a motion about the carbon tax.
    Does my colleague think the Conservatives are again missing the boat by avoiding cancelling the GST on home heating?
    Madam Speaker, my colleague just asked a good question.
    As Quebec separatists, of course we want federal taxes like the GST to be as low as possible. I do not see why we would oppose removing the GST from home heating fuel. That would be a good start.
    However, if the government ever moved forward with that, it would be nice if it applied to Hydro-Québec too. The problem is that the federal government subsidizes oil. It invests billions and billions of dollars in the oil industry, yet Quebec has never received a penny for Hydro-Québec. Even so, when we get our Hydro-Québec bill at the end of the month, it includes a federal tax.


    Madam Speaker, we have another Conservative opposition day and it is presenting, for the third time, roughly a similar motion. I find that disingenuous for the Canadian public, as Canadians go through so many difficult times right now. We know this because we have seen “greedflation” from the oil and gas industry and from the grocery industry that has raised prices unnecessarily, and I will come back to that in a moment.
     The fact is that the NDP's motion on Monday had a greater impact on freezing prices than anything the official opposition has done for years in the House. We have seen that as well with “greedflation” in the grocery sector and the rise in food prices.
    We have also seen it in the banking industry, which has received, under Conservative and Liberal regimes, hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity supports. Canadian families have been left to the side in all of this, as wages stagnate, as prices increase and “greedflation” takes hold, with companies profiting off Canadian families at this critical time.
    We have seen both Conservative and Liberal governments unwilling and seemingly paralyzed to act. That is why the 25 members of the NDP caucus have gotten to work.
     The NDP achieved a lot in the previous COVID Parliament. We forced investments that would actually make a difference in people's lives and provided supports. Tens of thousands of people in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby benefited from the COVID supports that the NDP forced through the House.
    The NDP also forced through the House supports for small businesses. The NDP and the member for Burnaby South also forced through the House a wide variety of other measures, like supports for people with disabilities, for students, for seniors and sick-leave provisions. All of those things in the past Parliament had a profound impact on the lives of Canadians in a positive way.
     We went right back to work after the election that was called by the Prime Minister. Rather than dealing with the crisis, he threw it out and as a result of that—



    I have to interrupt the hon. member because somebody's microphone is on. We have to make sure it is off.
    I would like to remind those members participating remotely to make sure their microphone is off when they turn their screen on or decide to connect to the virtual network.
    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.


    Madam Speaker, the NDP has gone to work in this Parliament and has pushed the government to put in place supports for dental care, a historic expansion of our health care system, and It is about time. Canadians believe universal health care is our most cherished institution. Our former leader, Tommy Douglas, was instrumental in bringing that about. Now, under the leader from Burnaby South, we have expanded it with dental care this year for children. Right across the length and breadth of our country, parents will be able to provide dental care for their children 12 and under. Inexplicably the Conservatives voted against that measure to help kids. They will have to explain that to their voters whenever the next election is held.
    We also forced the government to provide supports to nearly two million Canadians renters through the renter supplement, hundreds of dollars that will make a difference to people in my riding.
     Of course, the member for Burnaby South had been pushing for a number of months to get the doubling of the GST credit. That will mean anywhere from $200 to $500 that will go out in the next few weeks. Thankfully, the Conservatives, after initially opposing this NDP position, rallied. I think they finally understood the importance of providing those supports. As a result, we know those cheques will be on the way soon.
    Canadians are living in difficult times. They are struggling for affordable housing. They are struggling to pay their health care bills. They are struggling because their wages have not kept up. In this corner of the House, Canadians know they have an NDP leader and an NDP caucus that is resolute about providing supports, and we have the track record to prove it.
     Over the course of the last two Parliaments, almost every measure that has had a net benefit to Canadian families has come from the NDP caucus, leveraging in a minority Parliament our 25 voices, and 24 voices in the last Parliament, to make a difference for Canadians.
    The fact that we have one leader in the House who has a laser-like focus, ensuring Canadians benefit from decisions made in Parliament, has made a difference in the lives of so many Canadians, but we have so much more to do, and we are going to continue to push. The reality is that we have had seven years of a Liberal government that has basically been paralyzed when it comes to the important decisions that would make a difference in the lives of people.
    When we look at the disability benefit, it still does not have any substance behind it. We are going to be pushing, with Bill C-22, to actually have a disability benefit that makes a difference in the lives of people. However, to date, we have not seen the substance or the meat that actually will make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities.
     These are the kinds of measures the NDP will continue to push.
    On housing, we were able to force the government, in the last budget, to finally start to reinvest in affordable housing, and over the next couple of years 150,000 new affordable housing units will be built. That is a result of the efforts of the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus, again, to leverage our 25 members to make a difference, to push for change for a better life for Canadians.
    We are pushing to have put into place all the calls to action on truth and reconciliation. We are pushing for measures that would stop the spread of hate and right-wing extremism that we are seeing. We will continue to push all those elements, because we believe fundamentally, as New Democrats and as members of Parliament, that our responsibility is to make a difference in the lives of people.
    We did not see that in the dismal Harper decade, an incredibly dismal period in Canadian history, or in the seven years of paralysis that we have largely seen from the current government, until, with minority Parliaments, the NDP started to leverage and get things done in Parliament. We saw over the course of the Harper dismal decade a massive expansion of overseas tax havens, valuated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer at $25 billion a year, now over $30 billion a year. This is taxpayer money going off shore. The utlrarich, profitable corporations are taking their money offshore rather than providing those investments that would make a difference in the lives of families, students, youth, children, people with disabilities and seniors.


    Under both the Conservative regime and the Liberal regime, the immediate thought when a crisis hit, whether it was in 2008 or with COVID in 2020, was what they could do to help the banks. We saw under the Harper government a record $116 billion in liquidity supports given overnight. The Harper government wanted to shore up bank profits. That was its first and foremost priority. It cut pensions and eviscerated a wide variety of services for veterans, seniors and people with disabilities.
    It cut a whole bunch of important programs, including, inexplicably even today, the crime prevention programs that reduced crime right across the country. For the Harper government or any person connected to the Harper government, like the member for Carleton, to pretend that it took initiatives that reduced the crime rate when it destroyed the crime prevention centres strikes the heart of rampant hypocrisy. It eviscerated the most important tool in fighting back against crime.
    This was the record of the Harper government: destroying services and ensuring that the banks, the ultrarich and the oil and gas industry had record profits. That was its first and foremost objective. Sadly, the new Liberal government has done the same, continuing those practices. We have gone from $25 billion a year under the Harper government to over $30 billion in overseas tax havens under the new government. In the banking sector, it was $116 billion.
    We saw the Liberal government, in March 2020, step up in 96 hours with $750 billion in liquidity supports for the banks. This is while people with disabilities were struggling to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. They are still waiting years later, and we have a bill that does not do anything yet. However, the NDP is going to fight like hell to ensure that it does do something to actually make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities.
    What we have had over the last couple of decades is a government that has been focused on the needs of the banking sector and bank profits and that has allowed the grocery industry, the big giants of the grocery sector, to profit from Canadian families, without putting any measures in place to restrict that. With the oil and gas sector, of course we have seen the rampant profiteering, with the price going up on old stock as soon as there is any sort of crisis, as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out so many times. Both at the beginning and at the end of every crisis, the oil and gas sector reaps record profits.
    These are the decisions we have seen from both Conservative and Liberal governments, but now we have an alternative. I want to point out why it is so important for folks in Canada to recognize that. We have a choice between the current government, the official opposition and the NDP. In the coming election, whenever that is, whether next year, the year after or in 2025, at some point this Parliament will come to an end and Canadians will have a choice to make. We have seen what the Liberals and the Conservatives do. They cater to the wealthy, the ultrarich, the banking sector, grocery chain CEOs and the grocery empires rather than dealing with regular people.
    The NDP, this week, in our only opposition day of this cycle, brought forward a motion that ultimately forced all parties to support it. It recognized that “Canadian families are struggling with the rising costs of essential purchases” and asked the House to “call on the government to recognize that corporate greed is a significant driver of inflation”, or greedflation, as members know, and to take action, which includes:
(a) forcing CEOs and big corporations to pay what they owe, by closing the loopholes that have allowed them to avoid $30 billion in taxes in 2021 alone, resulting in a corporate tax rate that is effectively lower now than when this government was elected


    This is an important point. It was bad under the Conservatives. It is even worse now under the Liberals.
    The motion continued:
(b) launching an affordable and fair food strategy which tackles corporate greed in the grocery sector including by asking the Competition Bureau to launch an investigation of grocery chain profits, increasing penalties for price-fixing and strengthening competition laws to prohibit companies from abusing their dominant positions in a market to exploit purchasers or agricultural producers; and
(c) supporting the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in investigating high food prices and the role of “greedflation”
    When we introduced this motion, the CEOs of the big grocery chains and big food immediately stepped up to say they were not going to increase their prices anymore; they were going to freeze prices. The NDP had an impact with that motion. This is an important part of what members of Parliament should be doing.
    This motion passed unanimously, as members know, because it was good sense that we pushed back as members of Parliament knowing the impact that greedflation has had right across the length and breadth of this country. It has cost Canadians a terrible price. As a result of that, the member for Burnaby South brought forward this motion, which had an immediate impact.
    I contrast that with the Conservatives, the official opposition. This is the third time now that they have brought forward essentially the same motion. They did it on June 7, they did it on September 28 and they are doing it today. It is for tackling a price on carbon, as if climate change and the climate crisis do not affect Conservatives. It is quite the contrary. We know that climate change is impacting people right across the country. We know that putting a price on pollution actually helps to alleviate that, yet we have this obsession from the Conservatives where on three opposition days in a row they essentially bring forward the same motion.
    The motion does not deal with the issue of affordability, in the same way that the Conservatives in the House and the sound and fury from the member for Carleton do not in any way help Canadians. In fact, the Conservatives cannot really point to anything they have done over the last few years that has helped Canadians.
    The NDP can. We can point to dental care. We can point to the housing supplement. We can point to the affordable housing that we forced in the last budget. We can point to the doubling of the GST credit. We can point to all of the COVID supports that we forced in this House. In a minority Parliament situation, we are using the weight of our members of Parliament to make a difference for Canadians.
    What can the official opposition point to in the last few years? They can point to nothing, nada. It is so much the worse that it is a repudiation of the commitments made by the former Conservative leader in the election before last. It is important to point out that back in 2019, the Conservative leader, to quote the CBC website, made an “election promise to remove GST from home-heating bills”. To quote Global News, he said he would “cut GST from home heating bills as prime minister”.
    Given the opportunity to actually put that forward, the Conservatives failed, and they brought forward the same motion a third time, as if somehow it is a magical third time. It is that triple, triple, triple of putting together the same motion and putting it out to the House again as a rerun rather than dealing with the fundamentals of removing the GST on home heating, which the Conservatives previously promised to do and did not and which the member for Burnaby South has been promoting.


    What I am offering today is the opportunity for the official opposition to actually keep a promise. The Conservatives promised in the election campaign that they would take the GST off home heating, so I will be offering an amendment shortly that would do just that. The amendment, which the Conservatives should support because they committed to it, would replace the carbon tax in their opposition motion. Rather than for the third time dealing with the issue of climate change as if it is something that does not exist, we would instead put in place the removal of the GST from home heating. The Conservatives promised that, so they should support this amendment. It would actually have a meaningful impact on Canadians' lives. We know the impact of the GST on home heating, so it would make a fundamental difference.


    We have seen that the NDP is really making a difference in Canadians' lives. We have seen it with dental care, housing assistance and affordable housing, measures that we forced the government to include in the last budget along with the doubling of the GST credit. All of these are a win for Canadian families.
    Today, we will give the Conservatives the opportunity to keep their promise to eliminate the GST on home heating. We will propose an amendment that will make a real difference in people's lives.
    That way, the Conservatives will finally be able to say that they did something to help people, that it was not just talk, that they actually did something. They need to help people instead of just going around in circles.


    It is therefore with pleasure that I offer the following amendment on behalf of the NDP, and if good sense and good judgment take place, the Conservatives will support it. I move that the motion be amended by deleting the words “from the carbon tax” and substituting the following: “from the goods and services tax”.


    It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party.
    The hon. member does not have the support of the opposition; therefore, the amendment cannot be accepted.
    Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
    Madam Speaker, one thing that I think is extremely disingenuous, and I am curious if the member would agree, is that every time the Conservatives talk about the price on pollution, they conveniently neglect to talk about the rebate that Canadians will be getting. They say the price on pollution will triple, triple, triple, but the reality is that the rebate will triple, triple, triple.
    I wonder if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could provide his input on whether or not the Conservatives, when making that claim, are being quite disingenuous given the reality of the program.
    Madam Speaker, “disingenuous” seems to be the middle name of the Conservatives these days. They should recognize that the price on pollution is reimbursed for lower-income people, but the GST, which they promised to take off home heating if they ever formed a government, has a direct impact on consumers and Atlantic Canadians who are hoping to heat their homes.
    This is where I note the rejection of the NDP amendment. It would have made the opposition day motion different from the last two reruns and would have fundamentally helped people in Atlantic Canada and right across the country. This is why it is so perplexing. They were given an opportunity and the NDP did all the work. We said we were going to hand it to them on a silver platter, but the Conservatives said no. They just want to make an ideological point and do not want to help anybody.
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his revisionist history on the banking crisis of 2008.
    As I sit here, I see a shell game, a carnival, with the way the carbon tax is being laid out and always being proposed by the Liberal government and the NDP. If it was so good, why wouldn't the government give the refunds ahead of time? While people are struggling to make ends meet, their budgets are going up and people have gone into debt, the Liberals come in afterwards with cheques that do not quite meet the challenges the people of Canada are facing.
    Yesterday I stood and said that GST was being charged on top of the carbon tax on heating bills and the Prime Minister said that was misinformation. I would ask my colleague if he has looked at his heating bills, if he could confirm or deny that GST is actually being charged on top of the carbon tax and what his thoughts are on that.
    Madam Speaker, I have two answers. First off, why would the Conservatives say no to an amendment that would take the GST off home heating? Why did they do that? They just did that in front of the entire country as witnesses. They said no to taking GST off home heating. I have no idea where the Conservatives are on this at all.
    I do know that the member for Carleton is rapidly become the Liz Truss of Canada. What we have seen over the course of the last few weeks since he became leader are the despicable ties to—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Madam Speaker, this is a point of order. It is not debate. The member constantly said that there was no motion put forward by the opposition that involved the GST. I will read from the March 22 Hansard when the opposition motion was, “(i) Canadians are facing severe hardship due to the dramatic escalation in gas prices, (ii) the 5% collected under the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), and the Quebec Sales Tax (QST) creates increased revenue for the federal government”.
    This is not debate, Madam Speaker. This is the actual information. The member from wherever he is from is—


    Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the member from “wherever he is from” is actually from Burnaby South, just so my Conservative colleague knows.
    A point of order references the order of procedure. It is to call to the attention of the Chair that the order of procedure did not happen. Clearly the member is debating. He is not bringing forward a point of order.
    We are entering into debate.
    Madam Speaker, I thought it was unbecoming of the member across the way to correct a Conservative member and incorrectly refer to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby as the member for Burnaby South, so I hope he gets—
    This is definitely entering into debate.
    I will allow the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to finish his answer.
    Madam Speaker, for the record, I am very proud to be the member of Parliament for New Westminster—Burnaby and to represent both of our communities proudly.
    As I was saying before I was interrupted, the member for Carleton is the Liz Truss of Canadian politics. We saw that with the despicable tagging of misogynistic groups on his website. We have seen this with the inexplicable call by Conservatives to stop providing the supports to provide payments around EI and pensions. To cut back on those kinds of supports is unbelievable.
    Then we saw the disgraceful promotion of Bitcoin. At a time when Canadians were struggling, to say they should invest in something like Bitcoin, and now we know the value has collapsed, was simply irresponsible. I do not know where Conservatives come from. I think they need to come clean. They could have—


    Order. We must move on to another question. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
    Madam Speaker, this morning, I once again find myself in some kind of bad theatrical production where people keep repeating the same lines. They are the only ones who do not realize that this is getting really ridiculous. Everyone is talking, but at the end of the day, they are not talking about the real issue and how to help people deal with inflation right now. The Bloc Québécois has proposed very simple solutions, which include increasing old age security at age 65. We have been saying this for months, but we have yet to hear a response from the government.
    Can the member explain the government's inaction? Can he explain why the government is turning a blind eye to the fact that, because of inflation, seniors are having a hard time paying for groceries, heating and everything else?
    Madam Speaker, that is why the NDP pushed for the dental care program. It is important. This is going to help seniors starting next year. We know that seniors everywhere, in Quebec, in British Columbia, need access to dental care. The NDP did the work so they could have access to it next year.
    Then there is the help for renters. In Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, people need more support. The NDP also got that help for seniors who are renters. Also for seniors in Quebec and elsewhere, the GST rebate has been doubled, thanks to the efforts of the member for Burnaby South. This will go a long way toward helping people throughout Quebec and Canada.
    The reality is that the NDP gets results. That is why next time, the people of Quebec should vote for the NDP instead of the Bloc Québécois.


    Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his tremendous work, particularly around greedflation, which is something the Conservatives are not willing to call out. It is really going on the theme of being disingenuous. Although they are talking about helping people across Canada, every time the NDP puts forward something to help Canadians, such as dental care and doubling the GST credit, they vote against it. The current Conservative Party is not there to help Canadians. I wonder if my colleague agrees with me that one of its biggest failures in this is not being willing to cut the GST on home heating.


    Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her always relevant and pertinent questions. She does a fabulous job in the House of Commons and has made a real impact on the lives of people in Winnipeg Centre and right across this country, so I thank her for her service and her work.
    This is what is inexplicable about the leadership of the member for Carleton. The Conservatives recycle a motion they have already brought forward numerous times rather than saying that the reality is that they have not done this. They have not asked, despite the fact they have multiple opposition days, to take the GST off home heating. That is what the NDP is proposing today. We did the work. We did all the background. We presented it to the Conservatives on a silver platter. All they had to do was say yes. We have done all of the work for them, and they said no. As a result of that, their constituents are going to pay more for home heating than they would have if the Conservatives had simply agreed the NDP was right in its approach.
    Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to rise today to speak on the opposition motion. I want to make it clear that I am agreeing with the official opposition that Canadians are facing some serious energy pricing problems this winter, but I am making clear I will have to vote against the motion because I do not believe it addresses the real problems, nor is it as effective as the amendment just put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
    I want to ask the hon. member if he would agree with me that we really need to focus on energy poverty as a specific issue and resolve it, not with a one-time only band-aid solution but by getting at the problem. In preparing for this debate today I found an excellent report on energy poverty from the local energy access project, which is within the Canadian urban sustainability program of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The focus should be on those particular homes that have not been properly insulated, not just a one-time band-aid but something that would work for the lifetime of that property, moving more quickly—
    I have to give the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby 20 seconds to answer.
    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives had a program when they were in government called ecoENERGY and thousands of Canadians wanted to join it and deal with that energy poverty. What did they do in the dismal Harper decade? They had just one program that worked and they cut it. They slashed it. They eliminated it. They put thousands of Canadians out of work. There were hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the waiting line who were unable to deal with that energy poverty and efficiency—
    We have to resume debate.
    The hon. member for Beauce.


    Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.
    I rise today to discuss our party's opposition motion introduced by my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn.
    Since the Liberal government is so out of touch with reality, our party felt it was essential to present this motion today to give Canadians a break during this very important period, when inflation remains high and interest rates continue to climb.
    The current government likes to boast about its latest announcements, such as day cares and dental care, but it fails to realize that it will literally leave many Canadians out in the cold this winter. Some of my fellow citizens will need to choose between heating their home this winter and putting food on the table.
    As we noted in our motion, one in 10 Canadian homes is heated by propane or oil. These Canadians actually do not have the financial means to chose another option, but the government will continue to treat them like second-class citizens, tripling the carbon tax over the winter. What a wonderful Christmas gift from our Prime Minister.
    The gap between urban and rural areas has only grown under the leadership of this Prime Minister. He does not seem to understand that Canadians in rural areas are not second-class citizens. They want to prosper too, but his government is letting them down every time, whether a lack of cell coverage, defective Internet or this irrational tax that will triple during our country's coldest season. In the regions, there is no choice but to use a vehicle, whether to go to work, do grocery shopping or drive children to various activities. This tax is stifling them even more.
    When housing prices have never been higher, food prices have not been as high since 1981 with an inflation rate of 11.4%, the government thinks it is the time to increase the carbon tax even more. I suppose these inflationist polices were passed on from generation to generation.
    Do members know who the prime minister was in 1981? It was Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember it well because my spouse and I were a young couple with three young children. With high interest rates and inflation above 10%, we had to make difficult choices. Luckily, we had our parents to help us make ends meet. They were very difficult times. We can see the cycle repeating itself.
    We all know that government members will stand up and say that inflation is a global phenomenon, but this made-in-Canada inflation cannot be blamed entirely on Putin and COVID-19. Decisions are being made at the Liberal cabinet table. It is obvious to me that those folks are completely out of touch with reality and what is really going on.
    I can assure this House that the numbers would be a lot better if a Conservative government were in power. The Conservatives have been proposing solutions all along, but none of our suggestions have been taken seriously, because they do not revolve around taxing Canadians in order to recover funds to pay for the reckless spending and deficits the likes of which we had never seen before the current Prime Minister took office.
    The costly coalition with the NDP has turned into a nightmare, as the New Democrats continue to prop up the government and try to convince Canadians to support it. A government that stands up for Canadians would never triple a tax in the winter or raise taxes on Canadians' paycheques.


    Canadians work so hard. Why take away even more purchasing power at a time when they need it so much?
    In my riding, residents have a hard time making ends meet. In Beauce, like everywhere in Canada, people work hard. They own and operate businesses and help their neighbours. In my riding, the unemployment rate is currently 1.8%. People are exhausted. They are tired of seeing the federal government dig deeper and deeper into their pockets at a time when they need their hard-earned money the most.
    Surely the government will tell me about its $10-a-day day cares or the dental care they are currently imposing on us. First, I must say that Quebec has had its own day care system for many years now. Second, I can guarantee that a single mother in my riding would prefer to keep the heat on in her home or put food on the table to feed her family than have her children's teeth cleaned right now.
    All that is part of the agreement of convenience with the NDP. Before the costly coalition was established, I had never heard the Liberal Party talk about dental care. It is all just a scheme to continue undermining democracy with this coalition that no one in Canada asked for.
    As indicated in the text of our motion, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking for this same exemption, and our party has worked to do the same. This government's carbon tax makes no sense, particularly in relation to home heating. No one will turn down the heat in their home in the winter when it is bitter cold to reduce carbon consumption. I think people instead need to heat their homes to survive.
    Our party tabled under private members' business a bill similar to Bill C‑206, which was not passed due to the needless election call last year. Bill C‑234, which is currently in committee, will help farmers keep their livestock and animals safe and warm during the winter. That bill has the support of all the parties, except one. We can guess that it is the Liberal Party.
     In closing, I would like to reiterate my opinion: This winter, Canadians should not have to choose between heat and food. The Liberals must open their eyes and see the damage they are causing. Maybe they should listen to several of their colleagues in the House, and our party, because they are about to commit a serious mistake on January 1, 2023.
    The leader of the Conservative Party and our united caucus will not stop until the Prime Minister has heard us. We are here for Canadians, and even more importantly, I am here to protect Beauce. I hope that the government will both hear and understand my message today.


    Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague from Beauce's speech.
    I have been asking the Conservatives a question for three years now, but no one is ever able to answer it. Today, that question is even more important.
    Do members know what has never been so high? The record profits of oil and gas multinationals. However, I have never heard one Conservative rail against these obscene profits in the House.
    Does my colleague agree that oil and gas multinationals are making obscene profits and that we need to do something about that?
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
    We are here today to talk about the effects that inflation is having on the population in general and particularly on people in the regions of Quebec. I think my colleague will agree with me on that.
    I think that what is important is that we take real action to find an immediate solution to this very serious problem for all citizens.


    Madam Speaker, my question for the member is in regard to a commitment that he was no doubt a part of in the last federal election. I raised this earlier today with the Leader of the Conservative Party, but the leader chose not to answer the question.
    As candidates, they campaigned on the principle of supporting a price on pollution. Today, the Conservative Party is sending a message to Canadians that Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. That is emphasized once again with the motion we are debating.
    Does the member not believe that he and his party made a commitment to Canadians to support the principles? What does he think of that commitment today?


    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
    I think it is very clear that we made those promises in a specific context. Right now, we are in the middle of a crisis because of the rising inflation rate, which is driving interest rates up. We need rapid, concerted action to support the entire Canadian population, especially in rural areas.



    Madam Speaker, we know Conservatives are ideologically driven in their opposition to the carbon tax.
    We brought forward an amendment today to remove the GST on home heating because we know people are struggling. We are trying to find ways to work together. If there is a way we could converge and do something to help people right now, removing the GST on home heating would be an incredible opportunity for us.
    Would the member's party reconsider our proposition so we could provide relief on something we could agree on, something Conservatives had in their platform in the last election, which is removing the GST on home heating so that people could get relief right now?


    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
    As I said earlier, what is important now is to act quickly to fight the inflationary crisis, which is boosting interest rates.
    Many people in my riding still heat their homes with propane. We need to act quickly for them, and that is the purpose of our motion today.
    Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Conservatives' arguments, I clearly see that their goal is to deal with inflation and help Canadians and Quebeckers fight runaway inflation. At the same time, they do not want their friends, the oil companies, to shoulder the burden.
    The carbon tax does not affect the revenues of businesses in the oil and gas sector, and the proceeds of this tax are returned to the public and consumers. This is the kind of measure that helps them, because the tax revenues go back into the public's pockets.
    I would like to hear what my colleague from Beauce has to say about that. I do not think the carbon tax is a bad deal, because it puts money back in the pockets of those who need it.
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
    If he has been following the proceedings in the House, which I have no doubt he has, he has heard us mention on a regular basis that it is false to say that all the money is returned to the people. Real examples from my riding show that that is not the case.
    I believe we should be careful—
    The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.


    Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, in fact, of all Newfoundland and Labrador, and Atlantic Canada, to proudly support our Conservative motion to axe the carbon tax plan on home heating fuel.
    This initiative is the latest installment of the cult-like plan to triple the carbon tax on Canadians. According to the chair of the Council of Atlantic Premiers, the energy poverty in Atlantic Canada is nearly 40%, which is the highest in the country.
    Even Newfoundland and Labrador’s Liberal premier is begging the Prime Minister not to put carbon tax on home heating fuel. It will drive up heating cost by 20% this winter. The premier, a very close friend of the Prime Minister, said in early September that ending the current carbon tax exemption would place “undue economic burdens on the people of this province”.
    The four Atlantic premiers wrote to the federal environment minister around the same time to request an extension on the home heating fuel carbon tax exemption. They were flatly turned down by the Liberal government, whose intent to tax the right to heat one’s home reflects its cult-like beliefs that taxing the essentials of life will lower carbon emissions.
    The NDP coalition partners are partial to the very same beliefs. The leader of the carbon tax pact, the Prime Minister, brags that Canadians receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon tax. However, it is time for the Prime Minister to get the memo: Atlantic Canadians get zero carbon tax rebate, and now, the carbon tax deficit of homeowners who heat their homes with oil or propane is about to grow even more with the addition of this tax to their fuel.
    As if that is not enough, they will be charged HST on top of the carbon tax. That is right. It is a tax on a tax.
    The Liberal carbon tax is thus far a complete failure. Since the government took office in 2015, our emissions have increased, along with the carbon tax, with the exception of 2020 where it dropped, probably because the Prime Minister and his world economic forum buddies were forced to park their private jets.
    The failure of carbon pricing in Canada is in stark contrast to the success that Americans have had in reducing their emissions. They did not bend to climate activists, but instead, they used technology and did things like converting coal plants to use natural gas. However, the people of my province do not have the option of converting to natural gas, so they will have to continue, for the most part, with diesel heating fuel, and I will speak more about natural gas near the end of my speech.
    When implemented this winter, the carbon tax, combined with the HST on heating fuel, will be about 17¢ per litre, and according to our Liberal premier, this constitutes a 20% increase on the cost to heat a home. This is with carbon pricing at the current rate of only $50 per tonne. That rate is set to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030, which will drive up the carbon tax on that same litre of fuel to about 55¢ per litre.
    This is nothing short of a disaster created by a government whose smallest concern is the real lives of Atlantic Canadians. It is a slap in the face to the very people who have put so much faith in the Liberal government since 2015.
    I hear from nervous constituents all of the time lately. Constituents are already stretched to their breaking points by inflation that is out of control. Yesterday's food inflation numbers told them what they already know, and now winter is coming. The people of Atlantic Canada will need to choose between food on the table or a warm home.
    Recently, the environment minister bragged about his new program to switch homeowners from heating with fuel to heating by heat pumps. It is a plan that can help, at best, 3% of homeowners.
    Where does that leave Cory from Gander? Last year, Cory spent $4000 to heat his home. With the intended carbon tax added, he will pay an extra $700 on his annual heating bill. Cory considers himself to be middle class, but with this inflationary tax increase, he is worried about paying his bills.


    Felicia from Pike's Arm told me that she spent $6,000 in only 10 months last year to heat her home. The carbon tax on just 10 months of fuel will cost Felicia an extra $1,050, if the Prime Minister does not back down from his tax-hiking plan. The people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame simply cannot take more inflationary tax pressure on their lives. Real people with real bills to pay are really fed up. They are much more intelligent than the tax master, our Prime Minister, makes them out to be.
    They know this tax-and-spend climate plan is not working. Even the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador knows it is not working, and he says it is completely unnecessary with the price of oil where it is and where it is projected to go. According to most experts, oil is forecasted on average to be about $95 per barrel next year and will rise to $125 per barrel by 2025. With these oil prices where they are and where they are going, there is already enough pressure on consumers to cut their consumption. This is an unnecessary Liberal tax grab.
    According to the CBC, which by the look of it is abandoning its carbon tax love affair, Nova Scotians alone will pay $1 billion extra on home heating fuel by 2030. That is quite the tax grab. Can members just imagine: $1 billion and no guarantee that a tangible tonne of carbon reduction will occur? The one thing that is guaranteed is that money in people's jeans will be reduced by this inflationary tax pressure.
    The Prime Minister should listen to his friend in Newfoundland and Labrador. He should stop misleading Canadians while he contradicts the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the PBO, who said in March that the carbon tax will deliver a net financial loss to most households. The Prime Minister should listen to experts like the PBO, but what can we expect from a guy who said the budget would balance itself? He said there was no economic case for shipping natural gas from Newfoundland and Labrador to Europe, because of the distance.
    We are just 4,000 km from Europe. However, the U.S., with its LNG plants in Texas, more than twice the distance from Europe, exports a billion dollars’ worth of liquefied natural gas per day. Argentina, in a partnership with Petronas, is building a $10-billion LNG facility to export natural gas. The only place further away from Europe than Argentina is the South Pole, but our wise Prime Minister says that the island of Newfoundland is too far from Europe for it to make economic sense to take on such a project.
    Right now, as we speak, Germany is converting natural gas plants back to burning coal, which has double the emissions. Instead of helping our allies by harvesting the 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Grand Banks and boosting the prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal government promotes air pollution in Europe and energy poverty in Atlantic Canada.
    I am proud to support our Conservative motion to exempt home heating from the carbon tax, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the house, especially those from Newfoundland and Labrador and the Maritimes, stand with the people who elected them when they stand to vote on this motion.


    Madam Speaker, here is a bit of a challenging question, and I hope the member chooses to answer it. He makes reference to the Atlantic, and I do not know whether he said Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador, and he said the government would receive hundreds of millions, I think he actually said a billion, in terms of a carbon tax. That is what we are going to be receiving.
    Ottawa is not receiving carbon tax dollars coming from Atlantic Canada. It is the provinces that are receiving that money. If he really believes it is Canada that is receiving it, can he provide us an actual number that he believes the Government of Canada is receiving because of a carbon tax in Atlantic Canada?
    Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way knows that his leader and his party support forcing Atlantic Canadian premiers to place a carbon tax on home heating fuel. The carbon tax is a federal government initiative, and my colleague knows who invented the carbon tax. I just cannot wait to hear him say later that Atlantic Canada is going to get so much back. I cannot wait to hear him say later that we get so much back in rebates, like the Prime Minister constantly brags about, when it is completely false. Atlantic Canadians get zero back in rebates on the carbon tax.


    Madam Speaker, I think my colleague will agree that, when natural disasters happen, it is natural for governments to help the people who are affected. We saw it with Fiona. The government made investments to help those who had paid the price in their everyday lives. They lost their homes and other possessions.
    The UN estimates that, over the past 20 years, natural disasters have cost the world $3 trillion. When governments pay, it is the taxpayer who ultimately ends up paying for it in taxes.
    How can my colleague think that taxpayers will benefit?
    The cost comes to $3 trillion over the last 20 years. Just imagine what will happen if nothing is done. The carbon tax is not a perfect tool, but experts say that it is not that bad for now. In Quebec, we are better off, since we have a carbon market. Obviously, the bill will come due for taxpayers eventually.
    How does my colleague think things will go?



     Madam Speaker, what troubles me the most is the Bloc's attack on oil and gas. Renowned financial experts have said that if it were not for our oil and gas industry, Canada's dollar would be worth 35 U.S. cents.
    I have a little something else. How would my hon. colleague's province do without the transfer payments that arise from the prosperity that comes from our oil and gas industry? They cannot have it both ways.
    Madam Speaker, people are worried about upcoming increases in their home heating bills. Meanwhile, CEOs of big oil and gas are making huge profits on the backs of families. They made $147 billion last year. I never once heard the hon. member talk about the Irving family. The Irving Oil Corporation estimates revenue per employee at over $320,000, so does the member agree with forcing wealthy CEOs and big oil and gas companies to pay what they owe in order to fund the GST exemptions on home heating costs?
    Madam Speaker, that is a great question, but it kind of flies in the face of the support that our Liberal-NDP coalition gave to Loblaws. It gave Loblaws billions of dollars for its freezers while Loblaws was making massive profits.
    I support capitalism and free enterprise, not socialism and Marxism.
    Madam Speaker, It is a privilege to rise today to address this motion concerning carbon pollution pricing, particularly as it affects my constituents in York Centre, in the north end of Toronto.
    Climate change is real. It is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and carbon pricing is the backbone of our climate plan. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, the cost of living, infrastructure, and health and safety. The economic activity in communities across Canada is disrupted time and time again.
    We hear a lot of talk today about costs. The official opposition never speaks about the cost to our communities and to our health and safety, or about the impacts on the economy from these increasingly frequent severe weather events.
    The latest science warns that to avoid severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to hold the global average temperature rise at 1.5°. In April 2021, the Government of Canada responded to this by submitting a strengthened national emissions target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, a key milestone on the pathway to the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and a piece of legislation I am proud to have worked on.
    On March 29, 2022, the government released the 2030 emissions reduction plan, outlining how Canada will meet its 2030 target. The plan builds on a strong foundation, starting with Canada's first-ever climate change plan in 2016, and then our strengthened plan, released in 2020. Carbon pricing is central to this and to all of our plans, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    There was a time when Conservative economists at least understood this as a market fundamental, but today's Conservatives, honestly, are penny-wise and pound-foolish. They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada, and today they are fighting us on climate action. Today, we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. We just have to look at B.C. Between fires and floods, our residents are struggling.
    I am sorry that I did not say this in my introduction. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg North.
    While Conservatives oppose our climate plan, they also vote against every single measure our government brings in to improve affordability for Canadians. Whether it was a child tax benefit, pandemic relief or even, yesterday, on dental care and rental relief, they just keep voting no. I really do not understand why.
    Now the Conservatives pretend to be on the side of helping those who may be facing energy poverty, but Canadians have been riding this roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years. It is not new, but Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins for oil and gas producers, nothing.
    We have heard from stakeholders across the country that consistency and predictability are the key to unlocking investment in a low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce emissions. They need clear incentives and supports to commercialize and put those technologies into practice. Carbon pricing creates those incentives without dictating any particular approach. It lets businesses decide how best to cut their emissions.
    At the same time, this motion emphasizes that Canadians, especially the most vulnerable Canadians, are facing an affordability challenge. The federal approach to carbon pricing was designed to maintain the consistency demanded by industry and investors while prioritizing affordability for Canadians and their families.
    We know it is not enough to create a cleaner economy. We have to make sure Canadians can actually afford it. It is true that carbon pollution modestly increases fuel costs. The federal fuel charge currently adds about 10¢ to the cost of a cubic metre of natural gas, about 11¢ to a litre of gasoline and about 16¢ to a litre of home heating oil. These impacts will increase as the carbon price increases, and we know that every little bit counts with fuel prices already being high.
    However, carbon pricing is not and has never been about raising revenues. In fact, most households in jurisdictions where federal fuel charges apply end up with more money in their pocket than they paid. Conservatives should know this.


    A lot of members from the opposite way from Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba received their quarterly climate action incentive rebate, which was deposited just last week, but we never hear the Conservatives talk about that.
    Wherever federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families actually get more back through climate action incentive payments than they face with the increase on fuel costs. This is particularly true for low-income households, which come out significantly ahead. Why? Because they get the same climate action incentive payment as every other household of the same size, including higher-income households, which tend to heat larger homes and drive larger vehicles.
     For example, the average cost on carbon pricing on a household in Alberta is expected to be about $700 in 2022, but this is less than the average climate action incentive payment that will be provided to Alberta households, which is about $1,040. Similarly, in Ontario, the average household cost is estimated to be about $580, but households will receive back, on average, about $710. These estimates take into account direct costs, like paying more for fuel and also indirect costs, like paying a bit more for goods and services.
    Families in rural and small communities are also eligible to receive an extra 10%, because we know that our rural and remote communities face increasing cost challenges.
     Households can use these funds however they want. They can use them to absorb the higher cost of gasoline, natural gas and heating oil, and households that take action to reduce their energy use will come out even further ahead, because they will still receive the same climate action incentive payment.
    Canadians have real options, and the government is providing support for those options. We are not asking people to change their lives overnight. Taking transit or using an electric vehicle will not work for everyone right now, which is why we have the climate action incentive to ensure that the policy is affordable for everyone.
    Here is the real opportunity. Canadians who do make low-carbon changes benefit even more, and we are helping them make those choices.
     For example, fuel-efficient vehicles use less gas and therefore incur fewer carbon costs. We are accelerating the rollout of electric vehicles, and the government provides purchase incentives to bring the cost down. We are investing in more charging stations and the technologies keep improving, with longer range, better batteries and lower costs. Canadians are starting to do the math; I wish my colleagues across the way would do it as well. It is a rising carbon price, volatile oil prices and tailpipe pollution versus less maintenance, no oil changes and charging at home.
    We can look at our homes, and most of them are heated with natural gas, some still with heating oil. Better insulation, plugging leaks, a newer furnace, all of these use less energy, cut pollution and save money, which is why the government is supporting home energy retrofits through the Canada greener homes grant.
     The only way to eliminate energy poverty, reduce household energy costs in Canada and to have true energy security is by fighting climate change.
     The Government of Canada has also committed to return proceeds collected from the federal output-based pricing system, or OBPS, to the jurisdictions of origin. Provinces and territories that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in other backstop jurisdictions will be returned through OBPS proceeds fund aimed at supporting clean industrial technologies and clean electricity projects.
    Climate change is a serious challenge, but it is also an opportunity, and a very big economic opportunity. Canadians want to take advantage of the significant economic opportunities in a low-carbon economy. Analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates that changing to a low-carbon economy will deliver a direct economic gain of $26 trillion U.S. and generate 65 million new jobs. That sounds good to me.
    Just as we are putting a price on carbon pollution, we are also making historic investments in clean technology, innovation and green infrastructure to drive growth and reduce pollution, including $9.1 billion in new investments to cut pollution and grow the economy, which is part of our 2030 emissions reduction plan.
     This is the plan for the future, and it reflects the submissions of over 30,000 Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous partners, industry, civil society and the independent net-zero advisory body.
    Canadians want this. Canadians know we need to change, and the Conservatives are just going to be left behind.


    Madam Speaker, I come from Oshawa, which has significant export business. What my colleague may not understand is that carbon taxes affect the expenses for business, which affects our competitiveness. The reality is that the Liberals do not have an environment plan. What they have is a failed tax plan that has done absolutely nothing to decrease emissions.
     I wonder if the member would acknowledge this and admit that their plan has not worked with respect to lowering emissions and that she should be supporting our motion today.
    Madam Speaker, I would like to look at the history of the hon. member's party. When the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the leader, it took him over 400 days to come out with a climate pamphlet. The member for Durham was shunted out of here for wanting to say that climate change was real.
    We have been consistent in doing the work year after year, passing the legislation, offering incentives and working with business and industry, because we all need to change together.


    Madam Speaker, I do not know if my colleagues remember, but I remember when gas prices dropped to levels I had not seen since 2005. I told my partner that the pendulum would swing back the other way, that the price would soon go back up, and that it would not be good for the public because businesses would make up their profits when the pandemic was over. It seems that is exactly what is happening, with the huge profits we are seeing now.
    I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about the possibility of taxing the oil companies' excess profits and taking a long-term view, instead of putting half measures in place.


    Madam Speaker, doing the right thing for the environment, and what we are talking about today, is about lowering household energy costs. We know the market is volatile; it goes up and down. The government pays attention to that and offers supports to Canadians when they need it, and sometimes it is targeted.
     For example, recently the government put up $250 million to help Atlantic Canadians and others make the switch from home oil to clean energy or renewable alternatives.
    We will be strategic and careful. We are looking at the bottom line with respect to the pocketbooks of Canadians, their dollars and their households.


    Madam Speaker, I agree with the question that just came from the Bloc. We know that oil companies have had record profits, $147 billion last year alone. We have seen that with grocery stores. We have seen it with the big banks.
     I agree with my colleague that we need to invest in clean energy and support people so they can be energy efficient, and we can lower costs on clean energy. The only way we are truly going to get there is by ensuring that big corporations and CEOs pay their fair share.
    My colleague supported an NDP motion just this week to ensure that grocery store CEOs and big companies pay their fair share. Will she support the NDP's call to ensure that oil and gas companies and the big banks pay their fair share? When will the Liberals finally act?
    Madam Speaker, I am really glad we are on the same page with respect to the urgency of climate change, the costs that come to households, and ensuring that Canadians can make the necessary changes with supports like this one.
    However, we need to realize that big corporations need to come along in the process also. That is why we will not back down on the carbon tax. That is why we will not back down on working with industry and technology to ensure that a green economy is the economy for Canadians.
    Madam Speaker, I recently did a survey in my community, and affordability and climate change were the two top issues in Don Valley East. People there are very supportive of the initiatives we are taking.
     I want to ask the member this. Why is there such a misalignment between the Conservatives and Canadians on this issue?
    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy and his understanding that for the people in urban ridings like ours, the cost of living is really high. That is why we have these tax rebates for Canadians across the country. We understand that change is hard, but we need to make this change. The Conservatives are leaving themselves and others falling behind. I really cannot answer why they are dragging their feet on things that are so important to Canadians, like climate change.
    Madam Speaker, what a great contrast between what the Conservative Party, the official opposition, is doing and what the government is doing.
    We have a fundamental difference. We want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We believe in Canada's middle class. We want to support those striving to become a part of the middle class. We need to be there for those individuals who need that extra bit of help, directly or indirectly.
    From what I can tell, this motion deals with two real topics. One is the issue of inflation and one is the issue of our environment. If I were to pick a couple of issues to show the contrast between the official opposition, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party, they would probably be two of the top three issues.
    When I think of the price on pollution, it is almost comical where the Conservatives were and where they are today. They are definitely not consistent. I do not think they even understand the issue based on some of the comments we have heard today. Their arguments just do not make sense.
    I posed a question to the relatively newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, who has once again changed the Conservative Party's policy on the price on pollution. All 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election, including every one of the members across the way, had an election platform that supported the principle of a price on pollution. That leader was dumped and a new leader has come in. Now there is a new policy position, that the Conservatives no longer support the principle of a price on pollution.
    In 2015, countries from around the world went to Paris. Canada was one of many countries. Some agreements were achieved. One of the most productive discussions and dialogues that took place was on the principle of a price on pollution. Canada came back with a healthy delegation, and we started to push for a price on pollution. At that point, of course, the Conservative Party did not support it, but there were Conservatives from coast to coast to coast who did support it at one point.
    The world has recognized that a price on pollution is in fact the way to go, but the Conservative Party, with its most recent flip-flop, has gone back in time. I would argue that the Conservatives are not listening to their constituents. It makes a whole lot of sense to have a price on pollution, but the Conservatives conveniently try to misrepresent the issue.
    We all hear the words triple, triple, triple. Every Conservative member wants to stand in question period and say that the carbon tax will “triple, triple, triple.” They love saying that. What they do not tell us is that where the federal government is applying the price on carbon, in the jurisdictions like Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, over 50% of the population of Canada, there is actually a rebate, a credit. That credit is also triple, triple, triple. The Conservatives are trying, intentionally, to mislead more than half the population.
     In Ontario, for example, it is a $745 credit. In Saskatchewan, it is well over $1,000 credit. In Alberta, it is over $1,000 credit. In my home province of Manitoba, it is $832 for a household. They will receive, as will other provinces, quarterly cheques. That is money in their pocket, because of the price on pollution. People in Manitoba recently received $208.


    These are tangible things. The Conservatives will say that they are paying a tax. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer made it very clear that eight out of 10 are receiving more than they are paying.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, they can babble all they like, but that is what the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer states. That means that eight out of 10 constituents in Winnipeg North are receiving a net benefit, yet the Conservatives are fixated on trying to mislead the residents of Winnipeg North and, in fact, all Canadians.
    Today we had a member from the Conservative Party say that Ottawa is collecting hundreds of millions of dollars on our carbon tax in Atlantic Canada, which is absolute garbage. That is, again, the Conservative Party misleading Canadians, because that is not what is happening. In the provinces where there is no federal backstop, the money is going to the provinces. Ottawa is not receiving that money. We are not receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, as the member opposite tried to put on the record.
    What we are witnessing is misinformation coming from the Conservative Party of Canada, all in the favour of a catchphrase. We see that, and we will see it in about an hour from now when its members stand up for question period. For them, it is humour. It is a bumper sticker. They are more interested in that than they are in the environment.
    What is the Conservative Party of Canada's policy on the environment? It is moving backward. While every other political entity in Canada is moving forward in dealing with environmental concerns, the national Conservative Party is actually moving backward. If Canadians only knew the lack of sincerity, the misleading information and the ideas of the climate deniers in the Conservative Party, they would see the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals.
    We can also talk about inflation, which is the other part the motion attempts to deal with. Conservatives are saying, even though it is not true, they will give a tax break on the price on pollution. Actions speak louder than words. In dealing with inflation, we brought forward legislative measures to assist people during this difficult time. The biggest one was the GST rebate, which is legislation the Conservative Party originally opposed. Eleven million Canadians would benefit from an enhanced GST rebate, and the Conservative Party originally opposed it. After being shamed, they finally saw they were making a mistake and voted for it. I applaud them for that. It is good they voted for it.
    Then there is the dental care for children, which would provide assistance for kids under the age of 12 to receive dental care. The Conservative Party is voting against that. Along with that legislation there is legislation to support those who are finding it financially difficult to make their rental payments. Through the legislation, we would see direct payments. We also have legislation dealing with money going directly to people with disabilities.
    Conservatives can talk all they want about fighting inflation, but all they are really interested in is what they can put on a bumper sticker. To them, that is what it is all about. As they focus on trying to create havoc, we will continue to focus on being there for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, recognizing we want an economy that works for all Canadians. We want a society that truly cares about social programs, one that values national programs that are going to make a difference.


    Liberals will talk about the importance of long-term care and mental health. We will talk about dental care for our children. There are many things we—
    It is time for questions and comments. The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap has the floor.
    Madam Speaker, I continue to be amazed by the hypocrisy of the Liberal government. It baffles me why Liberals can claim they will be paying Canadians back more than they are paying in carbon tax. If that were the case, and the government would be giving them back more than it is costing them, why would Canadians change their habits? It simply makes no sense. It is obvious to me that this is not a plan to reduce emissions. This is simply a tax-and-spend plan, a shell game, from the Liberal government.
    Could the member opposite please confirm that this plan is only meant to distract from the fact that the Liberal government has failed to meet any emissions targets in the seven years it has been in government, and that it is really just a shell game for a tax plan?
    Madam Speaker, ironically, members might be somewhat surprised to know that the principle of a price on pollution actually originated in the province of Alberta. Go figure. Other provinces then picked up on that and started to duplicate it or come up with different forms of it. It is only the national Conservative Party of Canada that is moving backward on this issue, and I do not quite understand why when more and more people are looking for leadership on the environment.
    The report said that eight out of 10 people would benefit. The member does not have to believe me. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer made the statement that eight of 10 people will see a net benefit from the money being paid in and the money being paid out. That is a good thing, and it is why I think the Conservatives—


    The hon. member for Drummond.


    Madam Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean was lucky enough to get two opportunities to ask my Conservative colleague a very insightful question about the huge profits being made by oil and gas companies.
    I myself asked the member for Toronto—Danforth the same question earlier. Like my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, I would like to know if my colleague from Winnipeg North acknowledges and opposes the obscene profits being made by oil and gas companies. If so, what does his government plan to do to balance them out and rectify the situation?


    Madam Speaker, from day one, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he expects everyone to pay their fair share of taxes. That is one of the reasons why one of our very first budgetary measures was to increase the tax bracket for Canada's wealthiest 1%. That is something we have taken immediate action on.
    With respect to what the member just referred to, in the last budget we heard the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance indicate that we are putting a special tax on banks and insurance companies because of the pandemic profits. We are very open to looking at ways that we can, as the Prime Minister has dictated, ensure we move toward a fairer taxation system.
    Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I share a border. We represent ridings with some of the most severe human rights issues in the country, including his riding, which has the highest number of kids are in care in the whole country. Many families are living in poverty.
    Although I know he has given a lot of good news announcements, one thing the Liberal government has failed to do is force CEOs of big oil and gas to pay their fair share. They could be paying for things such as programs that could do more to help people make energy-efficient renovations to not only fight against climate change, but also cut down on their monthly bills. This is critical in our ridings.
    I heard another of his colleagues today talk about 2050. Families need help now. Is his government willing to go after big CEOs to get them to pay their fair share right now?
    Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments regarding children. She makes reference to our ridings, and there are so many children who need that extra attention. That is why I felt so good when we increased and changed the Canada child benefit program. It lifted literally hundreds, if not thousands, of children out of poverty. These are children who are represented by both of us. We need to continue to work hard at making sure—
    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake has the floor.
    Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Hastings—Lennox and Addington, also known as H, L and A. The member is also known as the daughter of the former member for that riding. His name is Daryl, and he is at home watching, so it is a family business here.
    Today, I am pleased to rise to support this motion from my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn, which would see the House lend its agreement to the comments by the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador calling on the federal government to exempt all forms of heating fuel from the Liberal carbon tax for all Canadians.
    Indeed, all four premiers of the Atlantic provinces have written to the Prime Minister urging him to stop punishing Atlantic Canadians with this punitive tax upon a tax this winter season, especially as they have already faced the highest inflation rates, Liberal just inflation rates, that they have seen in decades.
    It is the highest inflation since the Prime Minister's father bungled the failed national energy program in the 1980s. Let us take a walk back in time. It is worth resting on this point for a moment. There is an eerie parallel between the failed initiative of the Prime Minister's father with the national energy program, and where we find ourselves today.
    We have record inflation, a looming economic recession, western alienation and a government so blind, so out of touch and so reckless, that it truly believes it knows better than Canadians on how to spend their own money. As serious and as concerning as this type of arrogance is, there is hope.
    The failed national energy program of the senior Trudeau set the stage for the election of the strong, stable Conservative majority government of Brian Mulroney. The government's mismanagement of the economy and its zealous punishment of its own citizens who work in the oil and gas sector, as well as those who rely on this sector to heat their homes, is creating the perfect storm, which will see Canadians choose another strong and responsible Conservative majority government. This time, it will be led by my hon. colleague from Carleton, our honourable leader.
    My constituency of Miramichi—Grand Lake is the largest federal electoral district in New Brunswick. At 17,420 kilometres, it is more than double the average size of other districts in my home province. It is actually three times larger than the entirety of Prince Edward Island.
    My constituency is rural. It is extremely rural, and it is vast. I believe that the Prime Minister has probably read some short books about life beyond the limits of the major Canadian cities. I would imagine they were cartoons. I am sure he believes he understands the plight of everyday Canadians and their families from the CBC News, which blindly endorses and reaffirms the misguided decisions of the government as a regular part of its editorial control.
    Let me tell the Prime Minister and all the members of his government that my constituents and Atlantic Canadians, by and large, will quite rightly rely on oil to heat their homes this winter, and they want and need the government to understand that fact. They want and need the government to put people before politics and remove the Liberal carbon tax from heating fuel, which has already nearly doubled in price in the past two to three years.
    In rural New Brunswick and across Atlantic Canada, Canadians have few choices when it comes to heating their homes. Many, if not most, use oil as the primary source to keep their homes and families warm. Natural gas is not an option. As we have seen with the devastation of the electrical infrastructure across the Atlantic provinces after tropical storm Fiona, even electricity is not always reliable.
    It is one thing to lose electricity for days, or even weeks, in September or October. However, if this happens during a Canadian winter, between November and March, homes will freeze, plumbing will fail and homes will get destroyed. In many cases, oil is the only safe and reliable option to keep one's home and family warm through the Canadian winter in rural Atlantic Canada. I know that the government and the Prime Minister at least value the homes of Atlantic Canadians.


    I wonder, if the Prime Minister had his way, whether he would still have Atlantic Canadians locked in their homes, for their own safety of course. Perhaps he might consider chipping in with the Atlantic Canadians on their share of his carbon tax to help offset the cost of keeping these home detention centres warm this coming season, just in case he needs them one more time. It is frustrating for me to stand in this House, time and time again, and explain the realities of rural life to the government.
    I understand that, as members of the House, we all represent different constituencies and geographies, none being more important than the other, but there is a reality to Canadian life. Our country is large and vast, and a great many Canadians live in rural settings. They understand what choices work for them and their families, and they do not need the Liberal government taxing them in a punishing sequence for choosing the only available option that is safe and can be relied upon. Canadians are better to choose for themselves.
    The Liberal government has made enough decisions for people who did not want them to begin with. The government has mismanaged the economy in such a way that the price of heating oil has already more than doubled on its watch. Other necessities, like food and certainly the cost of building or maintaining homes with repairs, has at least doubled. The punishment of Liberal inflation never ends for Canadians, but their pain is the government's gain. For every item or service in our economy that is subject to the federal portion of the HST and has doubled in price, the government is now collecting double the tax on these items than it would have only a year or two ago.
    To be fair, to any normal responsible government, this additional tax revenue would be a windfall and help to allow a budget to balance itself, as the Prime Minister likes to say, but I understand the government has a severe spending problem. Even this doubling in revenue is not nearly enough for them. They have, in fact, caused inflation. Much of these high percentages we have are caused by the government's inability to have monetary policy and manage the books of this country.
    I revert to the fact that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, a Liberal friend of the government, has publicly called on the Prime Minister to exempt home heating oil from the Liberal carbon tax. This is not Ottawa Liberals whispering to themselves that it is time for the Prime Minister to move on. I can understand why the Prime Minister, with no serious job prospects of his own on the horizon, would ignore these Liberals, but a sitting and popular Liberal premier in Atlantic Canada, in Newfoundland and Labrador, speaking about it aloud in the news is a whole different story.
    I implore the Prime Minister, even if he does not listen to the Ottawa Liberals urging him to walk the plank, to at least listen to this one Liberal who has the courage of his convictions to try to explain these bread and butter issues to the federal government, which is so very out of touch. Premier Andrew Furey from Newfoundland and Labrador has made the decision to have the courage of his convictions, and we applaud him for that.
    I proudly support this motion to remove the Liberal carbon tax on home heating fuels. This is what my constituents have told me to do, and now I have relayed their concerns to the House. The tax grab by the Liberal government will increase heating costs by over 20% for working Canadians, and as the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has rightly said, it will create “undue economic burdens” on Canadians who do not have the resources to cope with this burden.


    Madam Speaker, we have heard, time after time, Conservatives come forward and talk about inflation as though it is a specific problem only to Canada. They say that Liberals and the Canadian government created this inflationary problem, but the reality is that just about every developed country in the world followed a similar pattern with their monetary policy in order to support their populations during the global pandemic. If that Conservative member is saying that inflation is strictly a Canadian problem and that monetary policy in Canada is what led to inflation, he is essentially saying the same thing for every developed country in the world.
    Is the Conservative Party basically saying that it is against the western world?
    Madam Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to answer this question, because while Vladimir Putin threatens to turn the energy supply off to our western allies and while he funds his war machine on Ukraine, the government here does not think we should develop our oil and gas, when we might distribute that oil and gas to our allies so they would not have to rely on Putin. I am going to take that question and say that I think the Government of Canada has turned its back on western Europe completely when it comes to energy.


    Madam Speaker, when I invest in something, usually it is to try to renovate my home, so it lasts longer. I want added value. I want to see a return. In the case of my home, the return is that it lasts longer.
    For the last 50 years, we have made massive investments in oil and gas companies and oil and gas development without seeing a percentage of the profits, other than what is received through taxes. This is without any commitment from the companies to clean up.
    Now, we have companies making billions of dollars in profit. These are profits like they have never seen before. Would it not be much better for the entire population if the oil companies, which make money on the backs of workers, consumers and the government—which invests heavily in the industry—were taxed on their profits?



    Madam Speaker, just the other day I was speaking to my sons who are in high school and they were learning about climate change in school. Obviously, we want our children to be able to learn everything that is happening in the world and all the issues. What I noticed was not getting relayed was what has driven the Canadian economy for eternity, which is natural resources and the revenue that has come from that.
     I do not disagree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc party who thinks that when there are record profits companies should be paying their fair share. I can agree with that statement. However, the New Democrats and the Liberals in this House love companies like Amazon and ArriveCAN. They love to buy new deep freezers for Loblaws when it has had record profits. They love to pay between $12 million and $20 million for new deep freezers for one of the richest companies.
    The member's question is a good one. It would have been probably better directed at the NDP or the Liberals, but I will gladly answer it.
    Madam Speaker, that is hogwash. The NDP has actually been wanting Amazon and the big corporations to pay their fair share.
    While people cannot afford to pay their home heating costs, which is the debate we are having today, the IMF is saying it is actually runaway corporate greed and CEOs who are making record profits in oil and gas, the banking sector and the grocery stores. To help interpret for my Conservative colleague, it is the triple greed that has taken hold of this country. I am calling on the Conservatives to stop being the gatekeepers for big oil and big corporations. Will they today tackle the triple greed?
    Madam Speaker, why is the NDP supporting the Liberal government, which supported $28 million to a Liberal donor's company? Now they have a $54-million ArriveCAN app that could have been made on a weekend for a quarter of a million by most tech companies. They jumped right into—
    We have to resume debate.
    The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
    Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to our Conservative opposition day motion.
    As we already know, record inflation is driving up the cost of everyday necessities. Meat is up nearly 8%. Dairy is up nearly 10%. Vegetables, fruit and baked goods are all up over 10%, with cereals up nearly 18%. Gas prices are 13% higher than they were at this same time last year. Our dollar is simply not going as far as it was before, and home heating is no different.
    Canadians have been burdened with paying these increased prices in tandem with their creeping increases. We buy groceries and gas every week and do so year-round, but heating is different. Heating costs, for most Canadians, is a seasonal expense. It is not something that most Canadians are paying at this point. As we head into the winter months that is going to change. With heating costs so high, thanks to the government, this Christmas will mark the very first time in history that Canadians are actually hoping for lumps of coal in their stockings.
    Rural and low-income Canadians are going to be hit the hardest. According to the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, the average amount spent on home energy in a year in urban centres in Ontario is $2,002. In rural Ontario, that number explodes to $3,198, a shocking increase of 62.6%. The report also breaks down the types of fuel used between electric, natural gas and other sources. When accounting for this, rural communities spend 57 times more on other sources of fuel. That is the difference between urban and rural Canada when it comes to energy expenditures in our homes.
    We have all heard about the dramatic impacts that are being caused by the energy shortages around the world, inflation and the war in Ukraine, but I want to bring this closer to home. Most of us here in this place have the privilege of walking into a room, flicking a switch and the lights go on. If the room is cold, we walk over to a thermostat and turn it to a comfortable temperature. Unfortunately, that is not the case for too many of our constituents. Even in my riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington, natural gas is the exception, not the rule. Most rural residents outside of small towns and villages heat with propane. Some are still using fuel oil, and a number, which would probably surprise colleagues, still use wood stoves as either primary or secondary heat sources.
     Earlier today, the member for Kings—Hants took issue with the wording of our motion, specifically the portion stating that for some Canadians there are no alternatives to propane or heating oil. He suggested that Canadians simply convert their homes to other sources. He may not speak to his constituents, but those who struggle through the winter need to be listened to. I am listening to the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. Would it surprise colleagues that there are communities in my riding that operate winter wood banks? It is like a food bank, but it provides dried, split wood to seniors and other shut-ins who otherwise cannot cut and split wood for themselves and might run out if the heating season lasts too long or is harsher than normal.
    My riding is not unique. Many ridings across Canada do not have the privilege of natural gas heating. Many homes across Canada have not been able to take advantage of electric heat pumps, because their climate is too cold or electricity has been too expensive. Propane is widely used and so is heating oil. This is why we keep asking the government to stop adding more and more taxes to these fuels. It is not that Canadians do not want to do their part. It is about treating one's fellow Canadians with respect instead of driving them into energy poverty.


    The cost of living is the single biggest issue in my riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. Constituents regularly call into my office, post on my social media or contact me directly with their concerns. For example, one wrote, “Last March I paid over $800 for half a tank of furnace oil. Last month it was $527 to top it up. I don't see how I'll be able to pay for basic home expenses.” Another said, “I paid over 400/month using budget billing (equal payments each month) equalling almost $5000 a year. Many people in rural environments that don't have the option to live in new homes AND for many people that are transitioning from oil to more efficient heating like propane, the cost is between 10 and $12,000.”
    To be clear, it is not just individuals who are being hurt by these increases; it is businesses as well. Last week, I received a text from one local business owner, who said, “Rural areas are getting gouged. [The] price of propane is out of control. I record every purchase I get, so I compare what It would have cost last year to what it will cost this year.” I would continue, but frustration with heating costs led this person to some very explosive language that would be considered unparliamentary in this place.
    For those watching at home who may not be familiar with the nuts and bolts of what is actually happening today, allow me to briefly explain.
    There is a tradition in Parliament that maintains that government cannot submit its expenditures until the opposition has an opportunity to demonstrate why it should not be allowed to. As such, certain days are allotted to the opposition parties to decide what the topic of debate will be. This is commonly referred to as an opposition day. On these special days, the motion put forward by an opposition party gets precedence over other government business, which means we debate that motion on the day regardless of what else is on the docket. This is what we are doing here today. This is what we are doing right now. Our Conservative opposition chose to ask the government to exempt heating from the carbon tax.
    Previously, we used one of our opposition day motions to ask the government to lower gas prices by 5% via a reduction to GST/HST. Unfortunately, that did not pass. I hope this opposition day motion will be different.
    Yesterday, in this place, the Prime Minister responded to a question from my colleague chastising the Conservatives for standing in the way of a payment. He said, “Mr. Speaker, this supposed preoccupation of the Conservatives with the cost of living would be slightly more believable if not for the fact they are standing in the way of delivering $500 in extra support to low-income renters between now and Christmas”. Today we have an opportunity to do better than a one-time cheque. We have an opportunity to provide sustained relief over the dark, cold, lonely winter months for millions of Canadians who are struggling by making their already inflated heating bill exempt from the carbon tax.
     Minority Parliaments can do the right thing. Sometimes, but not often, we do see eye to eye and do the right thing for Canadians. We saw that earlier this week when the House voted in favour of the NDP's opposition day motion to lower food prices. I was comfortable voting in favour of that motion because I knew it would help struggling Canadians.
     This motion would help struggling Canadians with home heating prices, and I hope this House has the good sense to pass it.


    Madam Speaker, I am assuming the member opposite was at the Conservative convention back in March 2021 when the party itself voted against admitting that climate change was real, so I want to ask a very simple question of the member. Does the member believe that climate change is real?
    Madam Speaker, there are actually constituents resorting to heating with a wood stove because a cord of wood is cheaper than a tank of propane. Which does the member think is worse for the environment? The issue is the cost of heating.


    Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.
    We have heard about the record profits made by oil and gas companies several times today. There are different ways of looking at a problem. Would she not agree to implementing a special tax on the huge profits and having the money redistributed to people who need it to deal with inflation? Would she agree, for example, to increasing old age security for people aged 65 and older? I know I am being annoying with this question, but I never get an answer.


    Madam Speaker, I am trying to decipher the purpose of this question. Is it for the hon. member to make a point or to actually make a difference? I speak to my constituents, and this costly coalition is digging into the pocketbooks of Canadians. What our motion today is here to do is help provide relief for Canadians.
    Madam Speaker, I have certainly enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on the status of women committee to get good things done for women and gender-diverse individuals across Canada. However, we differ on where the problem is.
    We know that big oil and gas is making record profits and we know that is where the problem is. The Conservative government consistently failed to make big corporations and big companies pay their fair share, including the CEOs of big oil and gas, who are reaping the benefits while people are struggling across the country.
    I wonder if she agrees with me that it is fine time that big oil companies pay their fair share and that we take that money and invest it to make things easier for people across the country.


    Madam Speaker, the people in Hastings—Lennox and Addington are extremely overwhelmed with high prices and have been forced to cut back and spend less. So should the government. Fuel and food prices are soaring, and the purpose of today's motion is to get us to speak to heating in Canadian homes. That is what I am here to do today.
    Madam Speaker, I take in good faith that today's motion is actually about the affordability of day-to-day life. As others have said in this set of questions, if we are going to be honest about that, we need to look at the record-breaking profits that oil and gas companies are making. If we look at the price of gas, for example, the carbon tax contributes two cents a litre whereas the wholesale margins mean net new profits are 18¢. That is nine times as much. Is this not of concern to the member?
    Madam Speaker, no one was waking up this morning in my riding with relief that the economy is in good shape. People in my riding are talking to me about the rising costs of everything, including home heating and groceries. Across the board, people are exasperated by rising costs.
    The role of the opposition is to respectfully try to hold the government to account. I am encouraging it to listen.
    I think I will start by picking up on the question that the member for Don Valley East asked of the member for the riding that neighbours mine. Specifically, it was whether she believed that climate change is real. This is not just about her response. It is about all of the non-responses we get to that question from the other side of the House.
    I think what we have to do is listen to her non-answer, listen to the continual non-answer and ask ourselves why. One of two things is happening: one, the Conservatives and this member do not believe that climate change is real and do not want to answer the question, or, two, which I submit is probably the more plausible explanation, they do believe climate change is real but are petrified of saying it and of their base hearing it.
    Imagine being part of a political party that is so petrified of how the base might react to hearing the truth come out of its members' mouths. That is where we see the Conservative Party of today.
    Earlier, we heard the Conservatives talk about how the federal government supposedly forced the provinces into this position. I am so glad to hear my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois point out the reality of the situation, which is that unfortunately for the Conservatives' narrative, Quebec and Ontario have been decades ahead of the rest of Canada as a whole when it comes to pricing pollution. It was Quebec and Ontario that met with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California, and ironed out the deal for cap and trade. That was back in 2006. The member for Don Valley East was part of the provincial government at the time they did that. A number of members of the House were.
    For the Conservatives to walk in here and suddenly suggest that carbon pricing is a brand new concept that is completely foreign to Canadian soil is absolutely ludicrous. We have seen Quebec and Ontario partner on it and get ahead of the game with responsible leadership, going straight to states in the United States, in particular California, and working on this. I find it incredibly rich.
    There is another individual who supports carbon pricing whom the Conservatives might listen to. Do members know who that is? It is their former leader Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper believes in pricing pollution. He actually said, in 2008, “our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon”. That is what Stephen Harper wanted.
    Where are we today? Ten years ago, people thought, wow, Stephen Harper's government is so non-progressive, but think of where we are today. The current form of the Conservative movement is so much less progressive than even Stephen Harper was.
    The Conservatives full-on reject the notion that climate change is real. They reject the notion of a basic fundamental principle of the economic system and how to incentivize choice in the marketplace. Of all people, the Conservatives, who purport themselves to be the saviours of the economy and understand economic principle better than just about anybody else, as they will always tell us, cannot comprehend the simple concept that putting a price on something will change behaviour within the marketplace. How is it that we got to this place where this Conservative movement will not even accept the reality of a fundamental economic principle?
    That is where we are. I know they are heckling me because they do not want to hear me say this, but one would think they would have learned over the last three or four years of listening to me speak that the more they do it, the more it encourages and emboldens me to continue, so I will.
    I want to talk about a company that recently decided to choose Loyalist—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!


    I am going to ask hon. members to please respect the person who is speaking before I have to take other actions.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
    Madam Speaker, there is a company that recently chose, over two locations in the United States, Detroit being one and I cannot remember the other, to set up its new multi-billion dollar facility just outside of my riding, in the riding of the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington. She was there when the Prime Minister made the announcement, and she was quite excited about it at the time, as she should be.
    The company, which is called Umicore, decided to set up its brand new lithium battery manufacturing plant right outside my riding, in her riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. The most telling thing about that was when the CEO was asked why he chose Ontario over Detroit and other options. The answer was that Umicore is making a sustainable product. It sees itself as a corporate leader in sustainability. When it puts inputs into its product, it wants to make sure they are clean. It recognizes that because of great leadership, like that of the member for Don Valley East and other provincial Liberals from a few years ago, we no longer burn coal in Ontario. We have the cleanest energy grid of all the options those companies are looking at.
    Where are we in the world right now? We are at a place where it is no longer just individuals demanding sustainability and saying they choose sustainability over profit or over money. It is now companies that are actively saying they do not want to set up in an area where they know the resources going into their product are harming the environment. That is exactly what we are seeing now.
    We have come to the point where even corporations understand the fact that clean energy is absolutely key, yet we do not even have a Conservative Party in which a member will stand up and say they believe in climate change. The member was asked a direct, straightforward and simple question by the member for Don Valley East, who asked the member if they believe climate change is real, and it was a complete non-answer. It is just so easy to stand up and say one believes climate change is real, but the member refused to do that. I do not understand why.
    They are mouthing “yes” to me now, but now they just need to verbalize it. They need to allow the voices to come out of their mouths and admit they believe climate change is real. That is all we are asking Conservatives to do. I know they have it in them. They are this close, and I am here to be the support they need in doing that.
    I know the Speaker wants to interrupt me to start question period, and I look forward to continuing afterwards.


    The hon. member will have two minutes remaining after question period to conclude his speech and for the questions and comments period.


[Statements by Members]


Track Cycling World Champion

    Madam Speaker, last week, the Canadian cycling team, led by Olympic champion Kelsey Mitchell, raced at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships in France. It was on that track that Mississauga's own Dylan Bibic, from Streetsville, became the first man to win the gold medal in his event, and he did it in his world champs debut at just 19 years old.
    Dylan won the 15-kilometre scratch race with an average speed of over 54 kilometres an hour. He is only the second male Canadian to win gold on that track. Dylan is now looking forward to training for his upcoming races at the elite UCI Track Champions League.
    It is a sincere and exciting privilege to congratulate Dylan for this historic win at Track World. Streetsville is proud of Dylan. Congratulations to him on earning his second rainbow jersey. We are all excited to follow his journey to the 2024 summer Olympic Games in Paris.

Abbotsford Rugby Football Club

    Mr. Speaker, the Abbotsford Rugby Football Club is celebrating its 50th season. Established in 1972 with just one men's team, it now boasts over 11 active men's and women's teams, with players ranging from five all the way to 70 years of age.
    In its 50 years, Abbotsford has won 30 provincial championships, and 55 players have represented Canada in world championships, test matches, sevens and the Olympics.
    Those of us in the House who have played this wonderful game know that rugby has a special and unique culture like no other. While two players may smash each other on the field, we will see them enjoying a post-game brewski, a meal and a friendly handshake at the clubhouse. Rugby brings people together like no other sport, and it builds strong communities.
    I thank all the players, coaches and volunteers who have made the Abbotsford Rugby Football Club so successful.

Municipal Elections in B.C.

    Mr. Speaker, last Saturday was election day for municipalities across British Columbia. I am pleased to stand in the House today to thank the previous mayors and councillors for all their work, and I congratulate those who are newly elected or were re-elected to these leadership roles.
    From Cloverdale—Langley City, I look forward to working with mayors-elect Nathan Pachal from Langley City, Eric Woodward from the Township of Langley and Brenda Locke from Surrey.
     I also want to thank all those who put their names on the ballot, and their families. It takes courage to put one’s name forward to serve one's community, and it can be done only with a supportive family. Democracy is more fragile than many of us realize, and I appreciate all candidates and those who voted during this election.
     I believe that municipal governments and the federal government can come together to solve our most pressing issues. Protecting the environment, fighting climate change, building affordable housing and combatting homelessness are the first issues that come to mind. This can all be achieved through collaboration and respect. I look forward to working with the new mayors and councillors.


Medal for Meritorious Acts

    Mr. Speaker, on December 20 of last year, firefighters in Val-d’Or were called to a fire at a factory where dismantling work was being done. In fighting the fire, one of the firefighters fell into a seven-metre hole partly covered by steel plates. His colleagues went to his rescue in difficult conditions, due to a lack of visibility and the fire close by, in a place that was hard to access. In the end, the victim got out with just a few injuries. The firefighters had to rely on their remarkable professionalism, unparalleled mental strength and intense efforts to rescue their colleague in distress.
    The Government of Quebec awarded the medal for meritorious acts to the five firefighters from the Val d’Or fire department who rescued their colleague and helped him avoid the worst.
    I would like to congratulate firefighters Luc Gronne, my former colleague at CISSSAT, Sébastien Ménard, Karl Hanbury, Jean-Christophe Pichon and Matthew Lachaîne for their act of bravery and courage. Bravo.

2SLGBTQ+ Community Activism

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my nephew Michel Gervais who is an ardent 2SLGBTQ+ community activist and president of West Nipissing Pride.



    Michel is once again putting Sudbury, Nickel Belt and Sturgeon Falls on the map. He has been cast to be a contender on the second season of Call Me Mother, a drag competition reality show on OUTtv. The first episode will be airing October 26. The series is hosted by Entertainment Tonight Canada reporter Dallas Dixon. The show allows prominent 2SLGBTQ+ people across Canada to appear in a drag competition, which will see up-and-coming drag performers.


    I am proud of Michel, and our government is proud to support the 2SLGBTQ+ community. I encourage parliamentarians to support gay and queer communities and individuals in their goal to advance their rights.


Affordability for Students

    Mr. Speaker, runaway inflation is hurting Canadian students. The University of Alberta campus food bank is facing the highest demand ever. In the past year, the food bank has gone from serving fewer than 300 families to having more than 1,100 clients. Most of these new food bank users are international students.
    Four litres of milk is $1 more than last year, and it costs 60¢ more for a loaf of bread. That may not seem like much to the Prime Minister, but it is a hardship for students on fixed budgets. With price hikes already on textbooks and rent, it is no wonder students cannot afford to feed themselves.
    Why is the government making it so hard for students to be successful?

Small Business Week in Yukon

    Mr. Speaker, this week Yukon celebrates Small Business Week while also marking Poverty and Homelessness Action Week, with the theme “healing hearts, building relationships”. Surely there is no better time to promote our local economies while reaching out to those who are struggling.
    I am proud to be part of a government that is creating an economy that works for all Canadians. I am also proud of our government's support for innovative enterprises like Kaska Dena Designs and Anto Yukon in my riding. Yesterday we announced almost $200,000 toward these two women-owned Yukon businesses, helping them scale up their reach in Yukon and beyond. Investing in Canada’s small and medium-sized businesses means we all prosper.
    Meanwhile, Coast Mountain Sports in Yukon is stepping up to help support homeless and housing-insecure people at this time of year. Its share the warmth program allows customers to exchange their winter jackets toward the purchase of a new one, with proceeds donated through the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition to help those in need. When we support local businesses, they, in turn, invest in our communities.
    Happy Small Business Week, Yukon.


Autism Awareness Month

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize October as autism awareness month.
    As a nation, we have made great strides in our knowledge of the autism spectrum, and much of that success is due to the efforts of organizations like the Société de l'autisme et des TED de Laval.
    However, there is still much to be done.


    Persons on the spectrum are an essential part of our society and we, as a people, are stronger because of their contributions. That is why all of us must continue to raise awareness and acceptance for persons on the autism spectrum, and I encourage us to go further and create inclusive communities for neurotypical and neurodivergent persons alike.
    We all deserve a dignified place in our society. People living with autism are no exception.


    Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure to meet with members from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. Tourism matters. It enables economic development and job creation. My community of Niagara Falls is the number one leisure tourism destination in all of Canada, generating some $2.4 billion in receipts. More importantly, it employs almost 40,000 workers.
    The recovery of Canada's visitor economy is key to Canada's overall economic growth, and I encourage all members of the House to meet with representatives of TIAC to discuss the impact tourism has, not only on this country but also in each of our communities. As they say, all politics is local, and so too is tourism.
    As the newly appointed shadow minister for tourism, I am committed to working with our Canadian travel and tourism stakeholders, including members of TIAC, to find creative and innovative ideas to expedite and support the recovery of our tourism sector across Canada, including in my home communities of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie.


Constable Shaelyn Yang

    Mr. Speaker, our community has suffered an incalculable loss. Constable Shaelyn Yang was killed in the line of duty on Tuesday. At 31, in the prime of her life, she was working every day to make our community a better place.
    As I stood with all members in silence yesterday to honour her memory and her service, I struggled to find the words I might say to her family and to her loved ones. I think about the families of her fellow officers, whose partners, mothers and fathers continue to serve so selflessly so that we can all be safe.
     I would like to ask that all Canadians who might hear this very short speech at one point or another take some extra effort to appreciate a first responder. It might be a police officer, a firefighter, a paramedic or a nurse. It would be a great way to honour Shaelyn’s service and, honestly, it is impossible for any one of us to say “thank you” enough.

Small Business Week

    Mr. Speaker, this week is Small Business Week, a time to celebrate the backbone of Canada's economy.
     Small business owners are our unsung heroes who employ nearly two-thirds of workers across the country. From my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex to Victoria to Whitehorse to Regina to Halifax, millions of Canadians rely on meaningful paycheques from small businesses to feed their families.
    The new Conservative leader will put the people first: their paycheques, their savings, their homes and their country. The Conservatives will fight the Liberal government's high payroll taxes, carbon tax, wasteful spending and careless attitude that is costing hard-working Canadians their jobs.
    This Small Business Week, I encourage everyone to shop local, support small business and know that the Conservatives are doing the same. I thank all Canadians who own or work for a small business for what they do.

Home Ownership

    Mr. Speaker, first-time homebuyers in Canada are giving up on the idea of ever owning a home due to the housing crisis. The average cost of a detached home in my riding of King—Vaughan is $1.8 million. Canadians are already struggling with their budgets. Buyers are not able to qualify for a mortgage. This is due in part to the high interest costs by the Bank of Canada.
     The qualification process used by financial institutions include principle and interest, property tax and, of course, heating costs. The tripling of the carbon tax will further reduce the purchasing power.
     The Liberal government has created more problems than it is solving in our housing market. The government needs to commit to stopping the tax increase. The dream of home ownership under the government has become a nightmare.
     The government must demonstrate compassion and understanding toward the desire of Canadians to own a home. The Conservatives will work to make this a reality.


National Small Business Week

    Mr. Speaker, this is national small and medium-sized business week, and I am proud of our government's support for innovative projects that move our economy, our community and our country forward.
    There is a small business in Châteauguay-Lacolle called Logiag, whose agrology and agricultural engineering experts help farmers adopt innovative, sustainable practices. With funding from the agricultural clean technology program, Logiag will participate in our greenhouse gas reduction strategy by calculating how much carbon is sequestered in farmland. That is just one example among many of our government's contribution to our SMEs.
    Together we will build an economy that benefits everyone.



    Mr. Speaker, as a proud Hamiltonian, it is an honour to rise in the House and report that the “spirit of '46” is alive in the NDP caucus. We continue our fight for workers' rights to collectively bargain with their employers and, when necessary, withdraw their labour in order to push back against a tax on their wages, working conditions, pensions and benefits.
     For decades, the New Democrats have introduced anti-scab legislation in the House to ensure that during labour disputes the use of scab replacement workers does not undermine the ability of workers to negotiate fairly or hurt labour relations. Scabs prolong strikes and lockouts and give employers little incentive to reach a fair deal. In the past, Liberals and Conservatives teamed up and voted against our anti-scab legislation.
     Today, I am proud to also report that we have not stopped fighting for workers and have used our power in this Parliament to force the Liberals to include legislation to ban replacement workers. That includes not just strikes but lockouts as well. We will always fight for more democratic workplaces, democratic economies and to improve the material conditions of working-class people in our country.



International Poetry Festival of Trois‑Rivières

    Mr. Speaker, the 38th edition of the International Poetry Festival of Trois‑Rivières came to a close just a few days ago. This year, 2022, approximately 60 poets from around the world gave more than 250 performances that were enjoyed by tens of thousands of poetry lovers.
    Ukraine was at the heart of this year's festival. In collaboration with the Ukrainian poet Dmytro Tchystiak, the festival wanted to give a voice to the Ukrainian people by presenting approximately 60 works by their poets. These poems were featured and translated, and then hung on the “clothesline of poetry”.
    I am proud of the festival's success and would like to congratulate Gaston Bellemare, its president, Maryse Baribeau, the executive director, and the entire festival team for making Trois‑Rivières the capital of poetry.
    The festival adds to the beauty of our world and brings elegance to its anguish, providing respite for the heart and soul.


The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, food prices are up 11% and Canadians are struggling to put healthy food on the table because of Liberal inflation.
    The Liberals could throw Canadian families a lifeline by cancelling their planned tax hikes on food, fuel and home heating. Instead, it seems the Liberals are determined to increase the cost of living with bad policies like failing to establish a Canadian vaccine bank for foot and mouth disease, putting our entire livestock industry at risk; by forcing front-of-pack labelling on manufacturers; by failing to give deemed trust to our fruit and vegetable growers; by putting a tariff on fertilizer and farms; and. now, tripling the carbon tax on farms and every aspect of our food supply chain.
     Grocery prices are at a 41-year high and 1.4 million Canadian kids live in households with food insecurity. Canadian families can no longer afford the Liberal government.
    There is hope on the horizon. A new Conservative leader, who does think about monetary policy, will end the Liberals' unjust inflation and ensure every Canadian can put affordable food on their table.


    Mr. Speaker, Don Duguid won every conceivable championship in curling, including two men’s world championships, three Canadian men’s championships and a Canadian masters championship, to name a few.
    He was the face and the voice of curling both in Canada and abroad for almost 40 years, and no individual has had a bigger impact on the spread of curling throughout the world. He was curling’s very first colour commentator, beginning a 29-year career with the CBC in 1972, followed by seven years at NBC covering five Olympics as well as countless Briers, Scotties and other championships. He was inducted into the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame, the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame and was the very first inductee into the World Curling Hall of Fame. He was awarded the Order of Manitoba in 2014.
     Today, curling great, and my father, Don Duguid received the Order of Canada from the Governor General. I want to congratulate my dad.


[Oral Questions]


The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister added $100 billion to our national debt before COVID‑19 and $500 billion to it before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He doubled the national debt by adding more debt than all of the other Canadian prime ministers in the history of our country combined. All of that money is driving up the cost of the goods that we buy and the interest that we pay.
     All of a sudden, today, the Minister of Finance has done a flip-flop by recognizing that these inflationary deficits are increasing the cost of living. How can we trust the people who caused inflation to reverse it?


    Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest deficit and the lowest debt in the G7. We also introduced a budget that proposes to reduce government spending by $9 billion. We also have the highest growth in the G7.
    While the Conservatives are busy playing petty politics, our government brought Rio Tinto to Sorel-Tracy. Our government brought Moderna to Montreal. We are the ones who are going to ensure the long-term resilience of our economy.


    Mr. Speaker, what a flip-flop. After adding $100 billion of new debt before the first case of COVID, half-a-trillion dollars of debt before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, doubling the debt, adding more debt than all other prime ministers combined, now the Prime Minister's government is saying that it is going to cut $9 billion and even bring in my “pay-as-you-go” law to find savings for every new dollar of spending. However, it now admits that deficits add fuel to the inflationary fire. Can we really trust the arsonists who lit the fire to put it out?
    Mr. Speaker, I would obviously pose a question. During the pandemic, what would the Conservatives have cut? What supports would they not have offered to Canadians? In what way would they have not been there when Canadians needed them the most?
    The second question I would ask is this. As we enter a time that is the most difficult probably that the globe has faced since the Second World War, it demands responsible leadership. Amplifying anxiety is easy; solutions are hard. Are the Conservatives going to support dental care for those who need it?
    Mr. Speaker, what would we have cut? We would have cut the $54-million ArriveCAN app. We would have cut the half-billion dollars for the WE organization. We said that they should never have given wage subsidies to wealthy corporations that were capable of paying out bonuses and dividends to their executives. That is an easy question to answer.
     In fact, $200 billion of the $500 billion in new debt in the last two years had nothing to do with COVID at all. Inflation was already spiralling out of control well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Liberals should stop blaming everyone else and tell us how they are going to reverse the inflation that they caused.
    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is stating that inflation is a problem that is only faced by Canadians. He is presuming that Canadians are not watching what is happening in the rest of the world.
    Right now, he has an opportunity. The Conservatives reversed the decision they made on Bill C-30 to provide support for Canadians. They have another opportunity to reverse their position to ensure that low-income renters have an opportunity to get the money they need in these difficult global times. They have an opportunity to ensure that those who need dental care get it. Will they reverse their position and support us in these measures?
    Mr. Speaker, it is true that dumb governments that ran massive deficits all around the world and printed money to pay for it all have inflation problems. Countries like Switzerland that have low or no deficits have low or no inflation.
     This was a choice. The government decided to spend a half-trillion dollars inflating the cost of living. More dollars chasing fewer goods leads always to higher prices. Now we have 40-year highs in inflation.
    How can we trust the very few people who caused this problem to fix it?
    Mr. Speaker, around the world we are dealing with unprecedented times: climate change, a war that has happened in Ukraine. We are dealing with global inflation and that demands maturity and serious answers.
    I would say for the member opposite that in this time, we have an opportunity not to amplify anxiety, not to make people more scared, but to provide them real solutions. It is bad enough that the Conservatives are not willing to support dental care. I am just asking, as the House leader, as somebody who is attempting to get that legislation in support of Canadians, will they at least stop opposing it so the parties that do support it can get it done?
    Mr. Speaker, now the member blames the war in Ukraine for inflation, when less than 0.3% of Canada's trade is with Russia and Ukraine combined. Furthermore, the very things that the Russians and Ukrainians produce, oil and agriculture, are abundant here at home if only the government would get out of the way and let our farmers and energy workers produce them. If we cannot do that we have bigger problems still.
    It is time for the Liberals to actually take responsibility. A half-trillion dollars of inflationary deficits have made life more expensive and have been bone-crushing for our consumers. When will they reverse these inflationary policies?


    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did not support child care for those who needed it, to help cut it in half immediately and make sure that it goes to $10 a day. They did not support raising taxes on those who are earning the most so that we could give a break to those in the middle class. Here we are again with dental care, where many families are struggling because of the challenges happening across this globe, and they are not supporting that. I understand they are not supporting that, which is their partisan position, but will they at least get out of the way so that those of us who are trying to help Canadians right now can pass legislation?


Democratic Institutions

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec is currently having a debate on the oath to the King of England. It is also a debate on the general principle of the monarchy. We are told it is not a priority. What is likely a priority is challenging Quebec's secularism law. What is surely a priority is challenging a stronger Charter of the French Language. This raises a fundamental question and I would like a clear response.
    Who is the head of state of Canada?
    Mr. Speaker, the oath is in our Constitution and it is a long-standing tradition in our parliamentary system. It is above all an oath to our institutions and our democracy, of which the sovereign is part. The Canadian courts have clearly established that it is not an oath to the person, now King Charles III, but to the state he represents.
     Mr. Speaker, what I heard the member say is that swearing an oath to the King of England is like swearing an oath to a symbol and a democratic institution, even though the king is in fact an actual person. Now I have heard it all. This is not a trivial thing.
    We are in a country where no one can tell me who the head of state is. That is quite something, yet they are saying that it is normal. A democratically elected prime minister is encouraging an oath to a foreign king.
    I would like someone to explain that to me.
    Mr. Speaker, everyone has their own priorities.
    Here on the government side, we are concerned about the rising cost of living, access to decent housing for Quebeckers, access to child care for our Quebec children and housing assistance. We are there for our youth, for our workers and for our families. I do not understand the Bloc Québécois's priorities.
    In the beginning, the Bloc was here for their passion. Today, we are coming to realize that they are here for their pensions.


    Order. I am not sure what is going on today, but there is a lot of chatter. It is nice to see people getting along, but I want to remind people that we want to hear the questions and the responses.


The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is still going up. The inflation rate at the grocery store is a record-high 11.4%. People are finding it harder and harder to pay for food.
    We forced the Liberals and the Conservatives to adopt our plan to help families. When will the Liberal government implement our plan to help people?


    Mr. Speaker, we laid out our affordability plan, and the first step is to double the GST credit for 11 million Canadian households. That money will flow in early November, which is very soon.
    We introduced a proposal to help low-income Canadians pay their rent and to subsidize children's dental care. I hope that all parties in the House will vote in favour of these measures.



    Mr. Speaker, without a question, the Rogers-Shaw merger will be bad for Canadians, for people and for our country. There is no question this will result in job losses. We know the Competition Bureau is also opposed to this decision.
    When will the Liberal government finally stand up for people, stand up for Canadians, and oppose this merger?
    Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that greater affordability, competition and innovation in the Canadian telecommunications sector are important to us as a government, as they are to all Canadians concerned about their cellphone bills and connectivity. Our government will ensure that consumers are protected and that the broader public interest is served. These goals remain front and centre as we analyze the implications of this proposed deal.

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, the finance minister had an epiphany after listening to the new Conservative leader's plan for ministers to find savings if they want to spend any new money. The only problem is that before COVID her government ran up $110 billion in debt, and before the Russian invasion added a half-trillion dollars to the debt. Of that, $200 billion was not even COVID spending. The government would rather blame everyone else than take responsibility for its homegrown inflation issue.
    How can any Canadian trust the government to fix the inflation crisis it created?
    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address that member's question. For weeks now, the Leader of the Opposition has considered our pandemic spending frivolous. I respectfully disagree. I think the millions of Canadians who kept their jobs and stayed employed because of the CEWS disagree. I think the millions of Canadians who were able to feed their children because of the CERB disagree. I think the hundreds of thousands of businesses whose doors are still open today because of our investments would disagree.
    Thank goodness we were here, because the Leader of the Opposition does not want to lead.
    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will continue to blame everyone else for their homegrown failures, and these failures are driving Canadians deeper into debt. They cancelled good Canadian energy projects, attacked our farmers and hit Canadians with a job-killing carbon tax. They drove up inflation and made groceries, gas and home heating more expensive, driving more Canadians to food banks and homeless shelters at an alarming rate.
    How can anyone believe that the same government that is pile-driving more Canadians into insolvency will give this economy a soft landing?
    Mr. Speaker, in the context of a country where fires, floods and hurricanes are already devastating and in the context of a time when there is a scientific deadline and timetable to when we must address climate change, we must make sure we take these actions so that we do not put future generations of Canadians at risk.
    I call on that member and the entire opposition to come with us, together in this place, and figure out a plan, like we have, to grow the economy, create jobs and fight climate change.
    Mr. Speaker, the government increased the debt by over $100 billion before COVID and then increased the debt another $500 billion during COVID, half of which it did not even spend on pandemic measures. Now we are supposed to believe the government has a new-found religion called fiscal restraint.
    If the government has not shown Canadians any fiscal responsibility in seven years, why should we trust it now?
    Mr. Speaker, we are a fiscally responsible government. Every single year over the last seven years we have been in government outside of the pandemic, the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone down. That is while we have invested in Canadians. In fact, the poverty report came out in October. We have lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty. Today, 25% fewer seniors live in poverty than when we took office in 2015, and that is because we are supporting Canadians.


    Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to run on its record, it is going to have to own up to its spending having helped drive inflation to 40-year highs. Canadians are having a hard time putting food on the table. Even the Bank of Canada says that inflation is a homegrown problem.
    The Liberals promise to keep spending increases to 2% a year. Has the Deputy Prime Minister told the rest of cabinet about this new fiscal plan?
    Mr. Speaker, we know that inflation is a global problem. Inflation in Canada has come down from its peak to 6.9%, but we know it is 8.2% in the United States. It is over 10% in the euro area. It is over 10% in the OECD.
    It is important that we continue to focus on affordability measures that are going to make life easier for Canadians, like we did by doubling the GST benefit, which is going to 11 million Canadian families that need it and over 50% of our seniors.


    Mr. Speaker, to our great surprise today, the Minister of Finance is now taking inspiration from the Leader of the Opposition's speeches. She realizes that budgets do not balance themselves and is asking ministers to find savings before proposing new programs. Hallelujah.
    The problem is that she should have listened to the member for Carleton much sooner.
    The Liberals added $100 billion to the national debt before COVID-19, and they added $500 billion to the national debt before Russia's war on Ukraine, $200 billion of which was completely unrelated to COVID-19. How can they be trusted to manage the inflation they themselves have created?
    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Conservative member is so interested in the correspondence between the finance minister and her colleagues.
    There is no question that our plan is based on fiscal responsibility. We delivered a budget that has been recognized by all the experts as fiscally responsible and we are seeing the results. Our inflation rate is much lower than that of our partners around the world.
    We will continue to make sure we spend responsibly.


    Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about fiscal responsibility.
    The Prime Minister said in his inaugural speech that interest rates would remain low for decades to come. I remember that the Liberals promised to run small deficits because we had the means and said interest rates were going to remain low and that it was no big deal to continue to rack up debt. The Liberals added $100 billion to the debt even before COVID-19. That is the reality.
    Today, they are asking Canadians to take them at their word when they say that they are going to manage inflation and lead them out of this crisis. No, Canadians no longer trust them. The Liberals are not capable of managing the crisis.
    When will you abandon your plan to hurt Canadians by raising taxes yet again?
    I would remind members that they need to ask their questions through the Chair not directly to the members.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary.
    Mr. Speaker, I think my Conservative colleague is too excited about attacking the Bank of Canada and the independence of our financial institutions.
    We, on this side of the House, believe in the independence of our institutions. It was a Conservative government, led by Brian Mulroney, that set the Bank of Canada's targets. We think that was a good idea.

Democratic Institutions

     Mr. Speaker, the minister gives the Governor General a pension. I do not know one Bloc member who would not give up their pension. Tomorrow, we will bring about independence.
    Now that the minister is here in the House, he could also act accordingly. I will remind him that he swore an oath to the British Crown. To whom is he loyal? To Charles III or to the public?
    Mr. Speaker, as an MP from Quebec and a proud Quebecker, I am here to fight and to work for the well-being of Quebeckers, as are all my Quebec colleagues. That is why, on this side of the House, we are focusing on the rising cost of living, access to housing, assistance for child care and health care. Those are our priorities. If the Bloc members want to debate that, so be it, but as long as we are here, we will tackle the real priorities of all Quebeckers.


Public Safety

    Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a Bloc MP. It was not just a lack of coordination between governments that allowed the trucker convoy to stay in Ottawa for 24 days, it was a lack of leadership. The request from the City of Ottawa was simple: It wanted 1,800 police officers, from anywhere possible.
    How many did the federal government send? It sent 250 RCMP officers out of the 1,800 that had been requested. The majority of those officers were deployed not to the streets of Ottawa, but in front of the Prime Minister's house and Parliament.
    If the Prime Minister truly believed that the situation was serious enough to warrant protecting his home, did he not think that it was equally justified to protect the public?


    Mr. Speaker, during the illegal occupation last winter, people across the country were hurting, not just in Ottawa but across the entire country. Canadians' freedom to feel safe in their homes was threatened. That is why we invoked the Emergencies Act. It was the right thing to do, and it worked to end this illegal occupation in Ottawa and across the country.


    Mr. Speaker, the federal government sat on its hands for three weeks before finally invoking the Emergencies Act.
    Today we found out from the commission that all of its excuses for using the most extreme of last resorts were false. Yesterday, CSIS testified that there was no foreign funding behind the convoy. The Ontario Provincial Police demonstrated today that there was no credible extremist violence. Every government excuse was false.
    Is it not true that the federal government's lack of leadership for three weeks was the only reason for invoking the Emergencies Act?


    Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has forgotten what it was like during that time and what the federal government was doing. We were working with the provinces, including the province of Quebec, as well as working with the Ottawa Police Service and police services across the country.
    Even the premier of Ontario, the Conservative premier, has said that he was standing shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister. We invoked the Emergencies Act to keep Canadians safe, and it worked.

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, more than 60% of Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, and food bank use is up by 20%. Housing prices have doubled under the Prime Minister, and now he wants to make it more expensive for struggling Canadians to heat their homes by tripling the carbon tax. Families will struggle to keep the heat on in February in Canada.
    Will the Prime Minister show some compassion for those struggling to heat their homes and cancel his plan to triple the carbon tax?
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's last report on pricing, not what the Conservative Party is saying about it, but what the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said. He said, “we project most households will see a net gain, receiving more in rebates from federal carbon pricing...than the total amount they pay in federal fuel charges”.
    Mr. Speaker, these are the falsehoods and failures of a tax plan disguised as an environmental plan. In four provinces, Canadians pay more in carbon taxes than they get back, and in the rest of the provinces, they do not get anything at all. Worse, the government has not hit a single environmental target. Emissions have gone up. If it were serious about making life more affordable, instead of freezing seniors, it would scrap the taxes.
    When will it scrap the carbon tax?
    Mr. Speaker, maybe it is time for the Conservative Party of Canada to come clean with the House and Canadians and admit to all that the fuel charge that will come into effect in 2023 will not come into effect before April, at the very earliest. This is April of 2023, so it will have no impact whatsoever on the cost of heating our homes over the winter.


    Mr. Speaker, the situation in this country is pretty bad. Food prices are up 11.4%, houses are unaffordable and young people are sleeping in their parents' basements.
    Winter is coming, and we know how harsh winter is in Canada. Heating our homes is not a luxury.
    Today we are calling on the government to exempt all forms of home heating fuel from the carbon tax for all Canadians
    Will the government support us?


    Mr. Speaker, I would like to enlighten my colleague on the other side about the difference between federal carbon pricing and the Quebec government's cap and trade system.
     The Quebec government has no planned increases because the Quebec system works on a cap and trade basis, and the cap is the part that goes down. It is not related to the price. I would be pleased to explain the difference between the two to my colleague.


Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

    Mr. Speaker, the Pakistani government is cracking down on Afghans with threats of deportation and imprisonment by the end of the year. As they wait for the special immigration measure application to be processed, many Afghans' 60-day visas have already expired. For others, they will expire soon.
    Processing delays and the arbitrary cap that limits the number of Afghans who served Canada who can get to safety are going to cost lives. The situation is more urgent than ever. What action is the government taking to ensure Afghans who served Canada are not thrown into prison or sent back to the Taliban?
    Mr. Speaker, listen, we remain firm on our commitment to resettle at least 40,000 Afghan nationals to Canada and to do this as quickly and safely as possible. We are processing applications day and night for Afghan refugees, and we have mobilized our entire workforce in helping.
    What I am most proud of is that, as of just a few days ago, 311 Afghans can now call Canada home. We have almost 23,000 Afghans here, and we will continue to work with Afghans. Our government is fully committed—
    The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Climate Change

    Mr. Speaker, people are struggling with the destruction caused by the climate emergency, and it is only going to get worse. A report by the Canadian Climate Institute reveals that the federal government needs to take greater action. By 2025, Canada will see an annual $25-billion loss to GDP, and it will only get worse every year. CCI found that proactive measures are the best way to reduce those losses, but the Liberals are far behind.
    Will the government stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and redirect those billions of dollars to help communities prepare for climate change?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Climate change is a very pressing issue, which is why our government is working hand in hand with colleagues, provinces, territories, indigenous leadership and municipalities to build the first-ever national adaptation plan so Canadians are better prepared to fight climate change.
    Yes, we are in the process of meeting our commitment to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies two years earlier than all of our G20 partners. This will be done by next year. These subsidies have already gone down from $12 billion to $4 billion just at EDC in the last few years.

Small Business

    Mr. Speaker, last week, I announced a $1.4 million investment in Racer Machinery International. This investment by our government will create and maintain 31 jobs in the Kitchener area.
    Could the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario update the House on how our government has supported businesses such as Racer?
    Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I am rising in the House as the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, and I wish to acknowledge that I am honoured, excited and grateful to take on this new role.
    I want to thank the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler for her advocacy for small businesses. Our government knows that when we invest in small businesses such as Racer, it creates jobs and strengthens our economy. Supports like this will help entrepreneurs reach their full potential, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Small Business Week.


    Mr. Speaker, the evidence is in. The Liberals' soft-on-crime approach is not working. Violent crime is up 32% in Canada since they took office, yet incredibly, Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory jail time for serious firearm and drug offences, even the offence of assaulting a police officer with a weapon.
    For the sake of our communities, police officers and all law-abiding Canadians, I ask them to please, do the right thing. Will the minister withdraw his soft-on-crime Bill C-5?


    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for being reappointed to his role as critic.
    Unfortunately, I disagree with him on his view of Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is about serious crimes getting serious consequences and getting the attention and resources they deserve. We are doing that by taking the focus off of instances where incarceration is not the solution, hence the focus on removing a certain number of mandatory minimum penalties. Serious situations, where public safety is at issue, will still get serious consequences.
    Mr. Speaker, these serious consequences would be to serve house arrest while playing video games for discharging a firearm illegally. That is not a serious consequence.
    The Minister of Justice has permitted a catch-and-release justice system. Businesses are closing down, and people in my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo are afraid to walk downtown in certain pockets, even in the daytime. We even had a McDonald's close down due to street crime.
    Bail has become the norm for repeat violent offenders. Will the government shut this revolving door?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and congratulate him on his recent appointment as the second critic on this file.
    Public safety is our priority, and serious crimes will always carry with them serious consequences. Former supreme court justice Michael Moldaver, whom nobody in the House could accuse of being soft on crime, has said precisely that we need to dedicate more of our judicial and penal resources towards combatting serious offences and treating those offences seriously, and conversely, taking away some of the resources for crimes that should not be punished by incarceration.
    Public safety is our number one priority.
    Mr. Speaker, the owner of a Winnipeg convenience store is in the hospital with a serious brain injury after he was attacked by thieves. Manitobans have become quite accustomed to seeing the daily headlines of assault, murder, arson, stabbing, stealing, and break and enters.
    The perpetrators of these crimes are usually the same people. It is a revolving door, and the bad guys are getting away with it over and over again. This is the Canada we have after seven years of Liberal government. What is it going to take for these Liberals to finally get serious and start protecting Canadian families from violent offenders?
    Mr. Speaker, we have been serious about protecting Canadians since we got elected. Our number one priority is to keep Canadians safe, and that is why we have introduced common sense firearms legislation, such Bill C-71 and Bill C-21, which is at committee right now. These would keep Canadians safe. These measures are supported by Canadians, and we hope that the hon. members across the way will support us in this legislation.
    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals well know that gun violence is the result of criminals and gangs who smuggle guns across the American border. It is not the result of licenced, trained and vetted-by-police Canadian firearm owners. At the same time, these Liberals are letting violent offenders off the hook. This year, a woman in Winnipeg was robbed at gunpoint while holding her infant child and had her car stolen.
    The Liberal Bill C-5 would remove mandatory prison time for robbery with a firearm. Therefore, this violent offender would serve house arrest because he terrorized this woman. That is the world these Liberals have created for Canadians. It is reckless, and it will continue to fail to keep Canadians safe. Does the minister not agree?
    Mr. Speaker, public safety is our top priority. The kind of circumstance the hon. member has just described is not the kind of circumstance that would carry with it a minimum mandatory penalty. It would go to the other end of the sentencing spectrum precisely because public safety was at risk and the act itself was serious.
    What we are doing, and what experts such as the former supreme court justice Michael Moldaver are suggesting, is that we concentrate our limited judicial resources on precisely those kinds of situations by freeing up resources from situations where public safety is not at risk.



Climate Change

    Mr. Speaker, what is not compatible with fighting climate change? The energy policy that the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced in Washington. She announced that Canada will fast-track oil and gas development to sell as much as possible to Europe.
    The government has even said that it could not care less about spending political capital. It clearly could not care less about public opinion, because what matters is selling gas to Europe.
    Could anything be less compatible with fighting climate change than producing more oil and gas to make money?
    Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to tackle the global energy security crisis and climate change. That is why we are investing in good projects across the country. These projects will have to comply with our climate and environmental ambitions and respect the rights of first nations.
    Mr. Speaker, it tells us a lot when the Minister of Natural Resources answers a question about climate change.
    What makes it even worse is that when the Liberals tell Washington that they want to sell more oil and gas, they are worried about their political capital. The Deputy Prime Minister said that we have to be prepared to spend some domestic political capital to sell fossil fuel in Europe.
    Instead of worrying about the impact of their decision on global warming, they are worrying about their political capital. In the midst of a climate crisis, should the Liberals be worried about political capital or about climate change when they talk about selling more oil and more gas?
    Mr. Speaker, in the 1970s, people thought that fighting climate change was the environment minister's responsibility. For our government, it is the responsibility of all ministers and all members on this side of the House.
    Everyone must fight climate change, whether it is the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transport, the Department of Justice or the Department of the Environment. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is why in Canada we now have twice as much investment in renewable energy and clean technology as we do in fossil fuels.
    The more we move forward, the more investment there will be in the renewable energy sector and the less there will be in the fossil fuel sector.


Public Services and Procurement

    Mr. Speaker, news broke this afternoon that one of the companies the government says it gave $1.2 million to for its ArriveCAN boondoggle says that it did not get a dime. Where is the $1.2 million? Who got rich?
    Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic, keeping Canadians safe has always been our top priority. That is why we used the ArriveCAN app. CBSA is aware of concerns surrounding contracts and it is looking into the matter further.
    Mr. Speaker, CBSA is concerned and Canadians are concerned because the Prime Minister's scandal-plagued record speaks for itself. This app, when it started out, was supposed to cost $80,000 and the expenses ballooned to more than $54 million. It wrongly quarantined and forced into house arrest 10,000 Canadians.
    It is a boondoggle. It is a failed app. The government lost $1.2 million. Who got rich?
    Mr. Speaker, I wish the party opposite would go back in time to when it was calling on us to close borders. We brought in the ArriveCAN app to keep Canadians safe, and it worked. It is no longer mandatory. As I said—
    I am just going to interrupt for a moment. I am having a hard time hearing the parliamentary secretary and I am sure the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes would like to hear what she has to say. I am going to ask everyone to take it down a notch and maybe take a deep breath.
    We will listen to the parliamentary secretary, from the top, please.
    Mr. Speaker—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Ms. Pam Damoff: Mr. Speaker, it is starting again across the way. I guess they do not want to remember what it was like a year or two ago when Canadians were living with COVID and the Conservatives were calling on us to close the border and stop letting people come in.
    We brought in the ArriveCAN app to keep Canadians safe, and it worked. As I said previously, CBSA is aware of issues with the contract and it is looking into it.


    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' continued use of the ArriveCAN app destroyed any chance of recovery this summer for our Canadian tourism sector. Canadians are struggling and deserve so much better, so they can be excused for being upset when the government committed $54 million to the disastrous ArriveCAN app.
    Canadians simply want to know two things: Who got rich at their expense and when will we scrap this app?
    Mr. Speaker, the ArriveCAN app is no longer mandatory. Perhaps the hon. member has not been watching the news to know that. However, I want to assure Canadians that it is still available for those who wish to use it.
    We brought in the ArriveCAN app, along with many other measures during the pandemic, because we were always putting Canadians' health and safety as our number one priority.


Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, Haiti has asked for international assistance to combat the current crisis. Since then, politicians and the corrupt financial elite have only ramped up their scheming, and gangs continue to terrorize the people of Haiti.
    Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us how Canada intends to respond to this plea for help?
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his important question and his support for the people of Haiti.
    Like many Canadians, I am very concerned about what is happening in Haiti right now. Solutions need to be found by and for Haitians. The Prime Minister and I are working with our counterparts on the issue. That is also why we recently sent safety equipment to the Haitian national police.
    We are also prepared to impose sanctions against those who are financing the gangs and feeding the unrest. Our message is clear. We will always stand with the people of Haiti.
    [Member spoke in Creole]


Public Services and Procurement

     This is very clear. The Liberals said the app was going to cost $80,000, and then they said they gave this company $1.2 million out of a total $54 million in this boondoggle. The company they say they gave $1.2 million to said they were not given a dime.
     We asked who got rich and the Liberals do not know the answer. Here is a new question for them: Who is lying?
    Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not accusing me of lying in this House.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Ms. Pam Damoff: Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to answer the question when I cannot even hear myself think.
    I have answered this question now four times. For the opposition to call the ArriveCAN app a boondoggle when it was developed to keep Canadians safe is appalling. CBSA is aware of issues with the contract and it is looking—
    I am going to interrupt the parliamentary secretary for a second and ask her to maybe give us the answer from the top again.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Speaker: Wait. I am going to share a little story. Last night I was at a reception across the hall and there were some people in the gallery. They were looking down and were identifying individuals who were screaming and shouting. They were embarrassed for the individuals. I want members to think of that when they are sitting in their seats thinking they are alone. They are not alone. Either they are on camera or someone is watching.
    I will let the hon. parliamentary secretary start from the top.
    Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic, our number one priority was the health and safety of Canadians. The ArriveCAN app was part of the response to that.
    As I have said numerous times in this House, CBSA is aware of issues with the contract and it is looking into them.



    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling because of the inflation caused by the Prime Minister and his government. Now, as temperatures are dropping below zero across northern Ontario and the Liberals are planning to triple the taxes on home heating, people are worried and are wondering if they are even going to be able to afford to heat their homes this winter.
    Will the government do the right thing, finally recognize that home heating is not a luxury and support our plan to cancel the taxes on home heating, yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker, last week, every Canadian household between Grande Prairie, Alberta, and Cornwall, Ontario, received a cheque from the Government of Canada. This cheque was the climate action incentive. Thanks to that program, 80% of households have more money in their pockets. Now every Conservative politician in this House wants the government to go back and pick the pockets of every single one of those households. With the affordability challenges that Canadians are facing today, that is something we simply will not do.
    Mr. Speaker, last night I spoke to Bonnie from a remote part of my riding, who lives with her retired husband. They paid $900 last year to heat their home with oil. That was double the year before. They just learned that their bill this year is going to be $2,400. On a combined income of $25,000 a year, that means they are going to have to eat crickets in order to eat and heat.
    When will the government stop hurting Canadians and cancel its plan to triple the carbon tax?
    Mr. Speaker, it is very important to say to hon. members across the House that climate change is real and is an existential threat to the future of the human race. The Conservatives are proposing to make pollution free again, and now they are proposing to pick the pockets of the vast majority of Canadian families by taking away their quarterly rebate cheques. This will make the climate crisis worse. It will drive away investment and will make everything more expensive. Our government will oppose Conservative political efforts to rob Canadians of this important financial support.

Small Business

    Mr. Speaker, this week is Small Business Week. Small businesses are the backbone of our communities across the country, especially in the Northwest Territories. They create jobs and economic growth and are critical in postpandemic recovery.
    Can the minister responsible for CanNor please update this House on the important work our government is doing to support small businesses in the Northwest Territories?
    Through CanNor's economic programs, we have supported hundreds of businesses in the north, including 200 women-led enterprises, over 100 owned by indigenous people and over 320 in tourism. Today, I was pleased to announce $50,000 for the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce to support local business events in NWT.
    Our government will continue to be there for small businesses to help them grow and create jobs.


    Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of groceries. The increase in food prices has hit a 41-year high, rising twice as quickly as people's wages. This week, we made the Liberals and the Conservatives admit that CEO corporate greed is driving up food prices. Now it is time for the government to take a stand and support families.
    When will the Liberals finally close tax loopholes, forcing CEOs to pay what they owe?
    As I stated for an earlier question, we have been focused on reducing poverty in this country. In fact, we have lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty, including seniors and hundreds of thousands of children. We have done that through benefits such as the CCB, the OAS and the GIS. We have indexed those benefits to inflation so that as the cost of living goes up, those benefits go up as well.
    We are continuing to look at programs like the recovery dividend and at a tax on excess profits for banks to make sure that everybody is paying their fair share.

The Environment

     Mr. Speaker, “Establish and fully fund a Canada Water Agency in 2022” and “Modernize the 50-year-old Canada Water Act” are quotes from the Liberal platform. A fully independent and integrated Canada water agency is urgently needed. We lack the scientific capacity to monitor water quality and quantity, to predict impacts and to protect safe water.
    The climate crisis is a water crisis. No more announcements. It is time to create the Canada water agency. Will the minister update us as to the plans to do it in 2022?


    Mr. Speaker, we are, in fact, working to create an independent water agency for Canada. We need more information on water and better water management in Canada, because water, despite the fact that we have a lot of it in Canada, is also under threat because of climate change. We are working on this and we will have good news to announce to this House in the coming weeks.

Business of the House

[Business of the House]
    Mr. Speaker, it is Thursday, the time when the opposition asks the government what we can expect in the week ahead. We have reason to be optimistic that there may be a piece of legislation that would enshrine the Leader of the Opposition's principled approach to government financing, where any new spending item would have to be accompanied by a spending reduction. This is something that the opposition would entirely support if the government were going to introduce that next week.
    I wonder if the government House leader would inform the House as to the business for the rest of this week and into next week. Can we expect legislation to enshrine permanently the brilliant idea the Leader of the Opposition has already proposed?
    Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the member opposite, my hon. opposition House leader, is that the government will continue to be introducing legislation that helps Canadians with affordability and makes their lives easier in these globally difficult and conflicted times.
    With respect to the immediate term, I can tell the House that tomorrow we will turn to Bill C-9, which concerns the Judges Act at second reading. On Monday, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday shall be an allotted day.
    On Wednesday, we will commence with the second reading debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, related to COVID-19 response and other measures. On Thursday, we will deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, with respect to dental care and rental housing.
    We also hope to make progress next week on Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Government Orders

[Business of Supply]


Business of Supply

Opposition Motion—Tax Exemption on Home Heating Fuel 

    The House resumed consideration of the motion.
    Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary has two minutes remaining.
    Mr. Speaker, I spent the first eight minutes of my speech prior to question period talking at great length about how the Conservative Party of Canada today is nothing like the Conservative Party of Canada that cared about the environment under the leadership of Brian Mulroney, for example. What I found very interesting between that part of my speech and this part of my speech is this.
    During an exchange during question period, one of the parliamentary secretaries on this side of the House talked about the Premier of Ontario Doug Ford being a Conservative. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton put in quotes “Conservative”, as if to suggest that Doug Ford, the Conservative Premier of Ontario, is not Conservative enough for this particular Conservative Party of Canada that we are stuck dealing with now.
    It goes without saying that I will vote against this motion. It is the third time the Conservatives have brought it forward. We identify that they are doing things in threes these days. Therefore, I will once again, for a third time, vote against this ill-informed motion brought forward by the Conservatives.
    I will reiterate what I said before, which is that pricing pollution is a smart, effective tool based on economic principles that we would assume the Conservatives could somehow wrap their heads around, yet here we are and they are reluctantly refusing to do that, despite the fact that even their former leader Stephen Harper agreed that pricing pollution was a—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are clapping for him. Great. Hopefully, they can clap for his principles too, which was to price pollution, because Stephen Harper certainly felt that way.


    Mr. Speaker, as I listened to many of the speeches today given by especially Liberal members, I found it very interesting that they seem to be incredibly dismissive of the challenges facing Canadians. They are tying themselves into knots trying to figure out a creative way to somehow spin that this motion is not about providing real practical relief to a part of the country that does not benefit from their so-called federal backstop. However, I will leave the many criticisms I have about that and the fact that so many Canadians, in a country so rich in natural resources, are facing energy poverty.
    My question for the member is very simple. Can he look past his partisanship, acknowledge the fact that many Canadians are simply asking for that bit of relief, come to the table and at least have a discussion about how we can get that relief to Atlantic Canadians who are facing unprecedented energy poverty?
    Mr. Speaker, what I am dismissive about is when Conservatives come into the House and continually purport falsehoods, like earlier today when they said the federal government has imposed a price on pollution in all provinces, which is not the truth. Quebec and Ontario were doing it with California long before the federal government ever got involved in it.
    The member seems to suggest that the particular motion before us today is the be-all and end-all to support Canadians. He is asking us just to provide a bit of support. I would remind him of the various different supports that have been introduced in this House just in the last several weeks, legislation that we know they are going to vote against. They changed their minds on increasing the GST rebate. They flip-flopped on that one. Maybe it is time for them to flip-flop on other supports, like providing dental care and housing supports for Canadians.
    There are many different ways that we can support Canadians and it does not have to come at the expense of the environment, which is what the Conservatives want to do.


    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his speech. I would like him to clarify something.
    Newfoundland has submitted a climate change action plan. My understanding is that if the plan is accepted, the province would be excluded from the federal tax and these concerns would no longer be an issue.
    Can my colleague comment on that?


    To that end, Mr. Speaker, had the province submitted a plan that met the standards of the national requirements, it would have been excluded, just like Quebec has. Quebec never even had to touch this issue because it was years, if not a decade, ahead of the rest of the country with respect to this issue. Ontario used to be in that same position.
    When the price on pollution was first introduced in the House, there was still a cap and trade model of pricing pollution shared among Ontario, Quebec and California, and Ontario was exempt from the federal program. What happened? Doug Ford ripped up the cap and trade program that had been put in place, excluded Ontario from that trilateral deal with California and Quebec, and as a result was subject to the default, which was the federal program. The federal program has always been the default.
    It has been about creating a standard, a benchmark, to which provinces need to adhere in order to be not included in that program. Many provinces have done that. Unfortunately, some provinces chose not to and those are the ones that are subject to the federal rules.


    Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed by the hon. member's speech because I only got to hear the last two minutes, but I am hoping he can talk about a former Conservative government that tackled acid rain with a price on pollution, how that worked and why the Conservatives will not learn from their own past.
    Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney spent a decade pushing the U.S. government to improve legislation to control acid rain. When George Bush came along, he agreed to it and adopted what Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, had been pushing for a decade. Let us just think about that. Brian Mulroney had a massive impact and effect on environmental policy throughout North America. That was a Progressive Conservative government.
    Unfortunately, what we have here is something completely different. There is no possible remnant of Brian Mulroney and the representative from my area, Flora MacDonald, left in what is across the way.
    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate. Indeed, our government is acutely aware that rising prices are being experienced around the world and that Canadians are not exempt, but at this point the hon. opposition should also be aware that carbon pollution pricing is not the problem. In fact, most households will get back more through climate action incentive payments than they pay due to federal carbon pollution pricing.
    The federal carbon pricing system is not about raising revenues. All direct proceeds from pricing carbon pollution under the federal system are being returned to the provincial or territorial jurisdictions in which they were collected. Among households, eight out of 10 get back more than they pay, so putting a price on pollution is not the problem. It is a solution and an effective one. It is a market-based mechanism that actually was initially proposed by Conservative economists, but for the official opposition, it is ideology over expertise every time. They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada.
    Today, we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. Conservatives vote against every measure our government brings forward to improve affordability for Canadians, whether it is the child tax benefit, pandemic relief, dental care or a temporary GST break. Now the Conservatives pretend to be on the side of those facing energy poverty. Canadians have been riding the roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years, and Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profits for oil and gas producers.
    The only way to eliminate energy poverty, to reduce household energy costs in Canada and to have true energy security is by fighting climate change. With the volatility of oil prices and record profits for oil companies, Conservatives are proposing Canadians be chained to the oil and gas markets and completely vulnerable to foreign wars and cartels.
    Because the problem Canadians are facing is global, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, our government has been steadfast in delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial supports to help Canadians through these challenges. We know that many are experiencing the rise in the cost of living through higher food prices and rent, and we know that this poses a particular challenge for lower-income Canadians, who are more vulnerable to these effects. We are supporting Canada's most vulnerable by doubling the GST credit for six months. That is why we have taken action to put more money back into the pockets of those who are most vulnerable.
    Bill C-30, which just received royal assent on Tuesday, offers a perfect example of how we are doing this. By doubling the goods and services tax credit for six months, Bill C-30 will roughly deliver $2.5 billion in additional support to roughly 11 million eligible low-income people and families, including more than half of Canadian seniors. This will mean up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children and up to an extra $467 for couples with two children. Seniors will receive an extra $225 on average.
    With Bill C-30 now law, these extra GST credit amounts will be paid starting in early November as a one-time lump sum payment through the existing GST credit system to all current recipients. Current recipients do not need to apply for the additional payment. They will receive it automatically. If individuals have not filed their 2021 tax returns already, they should do so to ensure they are able to receive both the current GST credit and the additional payment. Eligible Canadians who already received the GST credit will automatically receive their payments starting in early November.


    I would like to take a moment to look at some examples of what this will mean to some of our most vulnerable neighbours, in real terms. Under the present GST credit, we know that a single mother with one child and a net income of $30,000 will receive $386.50 for the July through December 2022 period, and another $386.50 for the January through June 2023 period, but with Bill C-30 she will receive an additional $386.50. In total, she will be receiving about $1,160 this benefit year through the GST credit.
    What is more, Bill C-30 is just one example of how we are helping the most vulnerable Canadians. We have also introduced Bill C-31, which would provide a Canadian dental benefit starting this year. This would be for families with children under 12 who do not have access to dental insurance and who have an adjusted net income of less than $90,000. Those families would be able to access direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, up to $650 per year, to cover dental expenses for their children under 12 years of age. It is expected that 500,000 Canadian children could benefit from this targeted investment of $938 million.
    Bill C-31 would also provide a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This one-time payment of $500 would be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families, or below $20,000 for individuals, who spend at least 30% of their income on rent. It is estimated that 1.8 million low-income renters, including students who are struggling with the cost of housing, would be eligible for this new support. For the Canadians who need this support the most, the most vulnerable Canadians, this would mean new money for them this year, at exactly the right time. The measures in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 would complement previous actions taken by our government and are providing help this year to support those who are most vulnerable through the current challenges.
    We have enhanced the Canada workers benefit. We will have cut child care fees in half by the end of this year. In July, we increased the old age security by 10% for seniors 75 and older. For post-secondary students, we have doubled the Canada student grant until July 2023. With these and other recent measures, a couple in Ontario with an income of $45,000 and a child in day care could receive about an additional $7,800 above their existing benefits this fiscal year. A single recent graduate in Alberta, with an entry-level job and an income of $24,000, could receive about an additional $1,300 in new and enhanced benefits. A senior in Quebec with a disability could benefit from over $2,700 more this year than they received last year.
    Helping our most vulnerable through the current challenges is the right thing to do. We know our government can tackle affordability and climate change at the same time. In fact, climate action and reducing dependence on volatile global oil and gas prices set by foreign cartels and overseas conflicts are the path to eliminating energy poverty once and for all.
    We know that a price on pollution is the most economically effective way to fight climate change. Canada's carbon pricing system is recognized by experts and institutions around the world, including the IMF, as being a model for other countries to follow.


    Madam Speaker, the member studiously avoided actually speaking to the motion. The motion is very specific. We are trying to express Parliament's will here in expressing our support and agreement with the comments of the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and calling on the government to exempt all forms of home heating fuel from the carbon tax for all Canadians.
    Will the member vote for this motion and with her premier?
     Madam Speaker, being a member from Newfoundland and Labrador, I am very pleased to say that I support the government's action that we not back down on climate policy. The tax is necessary to support a green economy. Climate action is essential, and carbon tax is a component of that. I work closely with the provincial government and look forward to continuing that relationship.


    Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and for whom I have great respect.
    The Bloc Québécois agrees that polluters must pay and that there must be a price on pollution.
    However, in April, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development wanted to determine whether this measure really targets a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. He concluded that it did for individual emissions, but not for those of large emitters.
    Does my colleague not think that there is work to be done on that, to ensure that large emitters also pay their share?


    Madam Speaker, I certainly support the government's policy that a carbon tax is absolutely essential to managing the climate crisis. We have to take bold action. We will continue to address the need to bring emissions down to a level that is in line with our targets of 2030 and 2050. It is important to remember that as the rate of pollution tax increases, so does the rebate.
    Madam Speaker, earlier this week, the Alberta Federation of Labour brought forward a report on what it would look like to have a just transition for workers in Alberta. The member talked a lot about the boom-and-bust economy and certainly my family, as a family that has been involved in the oil and gas sector for some time, understands the challenges of that boom-and-bust economy. However, we did not get clarification from the government this week if it would be supporting the calls of Alberta workers for a just transition for a future economy for workers. Could the member comment on that?
    Madam Speaker, I am always very proud to talk about the work this government is doing to support Canadians, to support workers.
    There is a plan in place for a just transition, and I can speak to this from my own province. We are moving ahead to ensure that our workforce is ready to move into the reality of low-emission technology, which will power the world as we move forward.
    I am very pleased with the work the government is doing and I am proud of the work it is doing to support families. We will continue to be there for workers and families as we move forward.


    Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on a question that my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, asked which the member refused to answer.
    Does the member stand with the Prime Minister, her leader, who is punishing her constituents and those who live in her province? Because of bad economic and energy policies, her province alone has seen a 52.8% increase in fuel oils. Otherwise does she stand with her Liberal premier, her constituents and follow what the Conservatives are trying to do to help save on home heating bills for her constituents?
    Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the relationship that the federal government has maintained with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am very proud to say that since 2019, Newfoundland and Labrador has received $8 billion in support from the federal government. I think that speaks for itself.
    Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
    The government is completely out of touch, and I do not say that lightly. There is a crisis unfolding in rural parts of our country, in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, a real crisis, a crisis the government is ignoring.
     Here is the crisis. Ten per cent of Canadians heat their home with heating oil or with propane. That is 3.8 million Canadians. About a million and a half households in our country heat their homes during the cold Canadian winters with heating oil or with propane. That is a third of Canadians living in Atlantic Canada. That is over a million people living in the province of Ontario. They heat their homes with oil or propane, and the vast majority of them heat with oil.
    What many people do not realize, and what the government certainly does not realize, is that these Canadians are in dire straits. They are facing a crisis this winter. The one out of 10 Canadians who relies on heating oil or on propane is going to be bankrupted by the cost of heating his or her home this winter, and here is why.
    Traditionally, 90% of Canadians heat with heat other than heating oil or propane. They either use natural gas or some form of alternative. However, here is the reality for those 10% of Canadians who use heating oil or propane.
     For a house that is heated with natural gas, for every dollar of heat that house uses in natural gas, for that same house located in an area where there is only heating oil or propane, it costs three dollars, three times the amount, to heat with propane and it costs four dollars to heat with heating oil, or four times the amount.
    These figures I give to the House are before the global energy crisis that has hit global economies over the last year or so. This winter the figures now facing the 10% of our fellow citizens who heat with propane or heating oil are truly frightening and that is why this is a crisis. I went on the website yesterday of West Nova Fuels of Nova Scotia, and I will quote from its website:
    [O]n average a typical house with four people in it should burn about three to four tanks of oil in a year to heat your home and hot water, about 2800 litres of oil.
    That is now much it takes to heat a typical home in rural Ontario and rural Atlantic Canada: 2,800 litres.
     I went on the website of a company called Crescent Oil in rural southern Ontario that services much of rural southwestern Ontario with heating oil. Its current price for the cost of a litre of that heating oil is $2. Some areas of rural Ontario and rural Canada have even higher per-litre costs for heating oil. Canadians will understand that if they are told that number two heating oil is diesel. That is what furnace oil heating oil is.
     If people have driven around in Ontario in the last week or so, they will see that the price of diesel fuel is at record high levels because of shortages of distillates and other heavy crudes, and it is selling for about $2.35 a litre now in Ontario. Therefore, it is no coincidence that heating oil, which is diesel, is selling for $2 a litre. That is $2 a litre for 2,800 litres over a winter. That is $5,600 to heat a typical home in rural Ontario or rural Atlantic Canada. That is before the carbon tax and the HST.


    There is a carbon tax of roughly 13¢ a litre on that heating oil. There is HST not just on the base cost of the heating oil, but also on the carbon tax, so that $5,600 it is going to cost to heat one's home this winter in rural Ontario or rural Atlantic Canada actually is closer to $6,739, of which $375 is the carbon tax.
    The government's rebates do not cover these costs. A typical four-person family, mom, dad and two kids, living in these rural areas, heating with heating oil and driving to work in a two-income family and putting 25,000 kilometres a year on each vehicle, because there is no public transit in rural areas, which is the very nature of living in a rural area, will consume about 5,000 litres of gasoline in a year.
    As well, in Ontario there is an 11¢ a litre carbon tax on that gasoline. That means someone who is paying about $550 a year in carbon taxes for commuting, and add to that the $375 they have paid on their heating oil to keep their home at a minimal temperature of about 19°C or 20°C, is looking at $925 a year in carbon taxes just on commuting and heating. That is not to mention all the carbon taxes that are embedded on shipping, groceries and other costs. The climate rebate of $204.88 a quarter, for a total of $819.52, does not cover the cost.
    Out of the government's own admission, and we heard it from the previous member, two out of 10 households in this country do not get more back from the rebate than they pay in carbon taxes. The government is ignoring those households and ignoring the crisis facing these households. It is ignoring the astronomical skyrocketing costs it will take to keep one's house warm in rural Ontario and rural Atlantic Canada this winter.
    The argument that this is somehow working as part of a plan to reduce emissions to combat climate change is bunk. Here is the proof. Liberals have not met a single target. They came to office saying that they were going to meet Copenhagen. We blew through that without meeting that target. They said that they are now on track to meet Paris, which is total baloney.
    Emissions have been rising under the Liberal government. In 2016, the first full year the government was in office, emissions were 715 megatonnes. In 2019, the last year before the pandemic for which we have data, emissions rose to 738 megatonnes. Now, they dropped in 2020, but shutting down the economy is no way to combat climate change and reduce emissions.
    I will go out on a limb here. I believe that in 2022, Canada's emissions will blow through that 738 megatonne level to a record high for the government. Do not take it from me; take it from Bloomberg. I was reading the news this morning and I came across an article Bloomberg just published today entitled “[The Prime Minister] Defends Canada's Minuscule Climate Progress”, with the subheading, “A bevy of climate policies championed by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have not yet translated into steep pollution cuts in the country.”
    I want to quote from that article—


    I want to remind the hon. member he is not to mention the Prime Minister or anybody else by first name or last name, even if he is quoting an article.
    The hon. member has one minute and 17 seconds to wrap up.
    My apologies, Madam Speaker. I got caught up in the moment and I made a mistake. I withdraw that.
    I want to quote from this article, because it is damning.
    It reads:
    But all of Canada’s peers in the Group of Seven, or G-7, have managed to achieve economic growth while simultaneously cutting emissions, and Canada’s environmental commissioner says the country is struggling to bend the emissions curve. Among the Group of 20 major economies, or G-20, Canada ranks behind only Saudi Arabia when it comes to per capita emissions, and ahead of Australia.
    That is a damning indictment of how the government's climate change policies are working, including its carbon tax.
    I will finish by saying that this is the only government in the G7 that has raised taxes on fuel during a period of record high global energy prices. Even the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is pleading for relief.
    The government needs to get in touch with Canadians and understand that 10% of this country is in dire straits facing a heating crisis this winter. It needs to do the right thing and cut the taxes on propane and heating oil.
    Madam Speaker, before many of us ever got involved in politics, I would say that we looked to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills as a beacon of hope in the Conservative Party with respect to fighting climate change. We saw him as the only leadership contestant in a race who was willing to talk about and acknowledge climate change. He, at the time, I believe, was a proponent of carbon pricing, a strong proponent of strong action to fight climate change.
    Lately, the Conservatives have been telling us to cut the tax, cut the tax, cut the tax, not acknowledging that supreme courts across the country have said that it is not a tax, that it is a rebate program and it is actually helping many families who have made many adjustments to their usage of fossil fuels.
    Many of my constituents also use heating oil and many of my constituents also use propane. The methodology of the member opposite is not going to help fight climate change and, frankly, it is not going to help our constituents in rural Halton either.
    Does the hon. member still believe in fighting climate change with carbon pricing?
    Madam Speaker, what I proposed in 2016 was, in fact, a revenue negative carbon tax. I even said at the time that I did not support this government's carbon tax quite simply because it is revenue positive. Not all of the money is returned to taxpayers. The government has used it for a plethora of programs that are not working. In fact, the government admits it itself. It says that 20% of households do not receive more back in these rebates than they pay in carbon taxes.
    What I proposed is nothing of the sort of what the government is proposing. Its plan is not working and the proof is in the pudding, as reputable news organizations like Bloomberg are pointing out.


    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
    He criticized the government for being out of touch. That surprised me, considering that the opposition motion would reduce the cost of heating, but not until April. We all know people do not heat their homes as much in April.
    This Conservative Party proposal is contradictory in many ways, and it is disappointing, frankly, because it does not elevate the debate in the House.
    Why does my colleague think his party moves motions that offer little in the way of solutions? So many more useful things could be done for our constituents.
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
    I disagree with her. The carbon tax already applies to petroleum products for households and consumers in Ontario and other parts of our country.



    The carbon tax is already in place and the figures I quoted were not for the increase that is slated to come in on April 1 of next year. They are for the carbon tax that is already in place and has been in place for a number of years that was increased on April 1 of this year.
    These are the costs households are facing this coming winter. We are calling on the government to provide relief to these households, as many other major economy governments have done and cut the taxes on these fuels so that households will not face either freezing in the dark this winter or potential bankruptcy.
    Madam Speaker, definitely people are worried about upcoming heating bills.
    My question for the member is about fair taxation. Does the member believe there is a lot of work to do to close the loopholes here in Canada for the ultrarich and corporations that are making outsized profits during this pandemic?
    Madam Speaker, one of the things we can do to help disparity in this country is to reduce the tax burden on the most vulnerable households, many of whom live in rural Atlantic Canada and rural Ontario, many of them in older housing stock that was built before 1980 that are facing extraordinarily high heating bills this winter.
    I think that would be a good place to start, and I encourage all members of the House to vote for the motion in front of us.


    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate because this directly affects Canadians. If there is one thing on the minds of every Canadian family from coast to coast to coast, from British Columbia, to Manitoba, to Quebec, to Newfoundland or the Far North, it is inflation.
    Unfortunately, things are not really getting better. The most recent figures show inflation hovering around 7%. That means a 7% increase in the general cost of just about everything. The area where inflation is hitting the hardest, where it is most directly and acutely affecting every Canadian family, is the cost of food. If there is one part of the budget that cannot really be cut, it is food, because it is essential.
    I am laughing, but I do not find it funny, because Canadian families are really struggling. According to the latest figures, food prices have risen by more than 11.4%. These are goods that are considered essential, such as cereal products, which have risen by 18%, coffee, by 16.4%, bread, a basic product, by 15%, and fresh fruit, by 13%. Even more dramatically, the price of pasta has risen by 36% and, for those who like it, peanut butter, by 42%. With a 42% increase, I doubt anyone will want to try it. The reality for all Canadians is that inflation is skyrocketing.
    It is important to understand that one of the things that is driving food prices up is the cost of shipping. Food does not fall from the sky. It must be transported. As we know, most products are transported by truck, and most trucks run on gas. This Liberal government's carbon tax is taking its toll. If the Liberal carbon tax were having any impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we could call it a success, but that is not the case. The government has never met any of its targets for combatting or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not working.
    It is now the end of October, and it is starting to get cold. The Canadian winter is coming. Everyone in Canada knows that we use more heat in winter. Fully 3.8 million Canadians, or one in 10, use propane or traditional fuels such as oil. This affects a lot of people. When transportation is directly involved, it impacts heating and food. That is why the government must implement good, positive and constructive measures to tackle the problem of inflation.
    This government is a little bit difficult to follow. Being the finance minister is no small role, yet we are increasingly seeing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance beginning to act as the prime minister, the foreign affairs minister, the natural resources minister and the environment minister. In short, she is taking on all the roles and speaking to groups all over the world. That is how the government finds out what its new finance policy is. Even worse, the finance minister is completely contradicting the government's record. Today, she stated that her government's policies have had an impact on inflation. Unfortunately, she is right about that.
    It is unfortunate because we have been saying for years that the Liberal government's policies have fuelled the inflation that is now hitting Canadians. When members talk about inflation, they often say that it is affecting the whole world. However, I would point out that inflation does not happen overnight. There are situations that fuel inflation, and this government has been demonstrating that for seven years and one day. The election was seven years ago. That is when this government was elected.
    Let us not forget the big campaign promise that the government made about public finances in 2015. It said it would run three modest deficits and then achieve a zero deficit in 2019. What actually happened during that first term? It was three major deficits, followed by a fourth deficit.


    That is the track record of this government, which got elected by promising to run three small deficits and then a zero deficit. That did not happen. On the contrary, the government increased the debt by over $100 million.
    When the pandemic hit, the government started handing out money like drinks at an open bar. We understand that crises can occur. When we were in office in 2008, we expected that there might be deficits but that they would only be temporary. Most importantly, in the wake of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 crisis, our government implemented a plan to balance the budget, and that plan worked. The fact remains that, in 2015, we were the first G7 country to get back on our feet after the financial crisis of 2008, 2009 and 2010. We led the pack in terms of countries that weathered the crisis best. Today, we are at the back of the pack when it comes to this government's management of the public purse.
    The deficits the government ran because of the pandemic were to be expected, but that is not the case for the enormous deficits this government decided to rack up. It added $500 billion to the debt. Some will say that these deficits were due to the pandemic, but $200 billion of that amount was not COVID-19 related. We must therefore be wary when the Liberals say that the deficits are due to COVID-19, because that is not the case.
    We can do a very detailed review of all the government's measures and its out-of-control spending. The latest financial disaster is ArriveCAN, a major hassle for just about everyone in Canada on top of not producing the desired results. We want to take a close look at why so many tens of millions of dollars were spent on something that never worked and could have been developed for a fraction of the price.
    This government's track record includes over half a trillion dollars in accumulated debt. Of that, over $100 billion predates COVID‑19, and over $200 billion has nothing to do with COVID‑19. Now we have to deal with it.
    What is the government's plan to try to curb inflation or reduce its impact on Canadians? Unfortunately, it does not have one. Worse still, it refuses to temper its greedy desire to raise taxes, which is the wrong thing to do. I realize that when inflation is high and taxes are kept at the same rate, it can be very profitable for a government. As people pay higher prices, the tax is obviously higher. The amount of money that the government takes in is much higher than it would normally be. While the government is lining its pockets, Canadians are having their pockets picked because of rampant inflation and a government that refuses to cut taxes.
    There are two things that should be noted about this government. Personally, I like to compare myself to the best. Let us compare Canada's current Liberal government to the other G7 countries, which are the most industrialized countries, the best countries in the world. Unfortunately, the Canadian government is the only G7 government that has not cut taxes. The other six countries have done so.
    Even the Prime Minister's close friend, President Biden, lowered certain taxes. Every country on the planet wanted to provide relief to taxpayers. Only Canadians, who are living under the yoke of this Liberal government, are not getting any relief. Canada is the only G7 country to have raised taxes on fuel, but this is not producing the desired results, in other words lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Worse yet, it is increasing the burden on the citizens.
    That is the reason for today's runaway inflation, which is affecting the lives of every Canadian. When the price of traditional energy is directly affected, that directly affects the price of transportation, heating and food. These are necessities for Canadians, who live a big country and who need to eat, get around, and heat their homes. The government is maintaining the Liberal carbon tax and the planned increase on April 1, but that is not the right approach to solve the climate problems, much less to help Canadians who are dealing with the inflationary crisis that is hurting all families right now.



    Madam Speaker, as the member opposite is talking about tax relief for Canadians, does he consider a doubling of the GST credit tax relief? If not, what is it?
    Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague's question. The point is that when we talk about tax breaks, we talk about real tax breaks.
    For many weeks, if not for many months or even a full year, we have asked the government to lower the taxes in this country. It is not because we are good guys on this side of the House, but because we are actual citizens and we understand. More than that, everybody in the world is doing this.
    An hon. member: Oh, oh!
    Mr. Gérard Deltell: Madam Speaker, each and every country in the G7 has lowered taxes, except the Canadian government. Shame on them.
    I want to remind the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill that she had an opportunity to ask a question. She does not have an opportunity to do a rebuttal, unless it is through questions and comments.


    The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
    Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech. I know that he is also the environment critic, so I would like to ask him a rather simple question.
    If there is one price that keeps going up and down, it is the price of fossil fuels. If there is one thing that is always changing, that is chronically unstable, it is the price of fossil fuels. Does my colleague agree that we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels?
    I fully realize that a transition will not take place overnight, so not everyone is going to lose their jobs, but we need a plan to reduce our dependency, and the sooner the better.
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his question. Of course we are in favour of that. The entire world agrees that climate change is real and that we need an energy transition. We have been saying that for years too. However, we need to find the right approach.
    As a Canadian, I will never understand why we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars to other countries when we have that traditional energy here at home. In Quebec, where I am proud to live and pay my taxes, we see that, year after year, 35%, 40% or 45% of the oil we use comes from Texas. I am uncomfortable with that as a Canadian.
    Perhaps it does not bother some people to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Texas, and that is their call. I, for one, would rather keep that money here in Quebec. I do not support the Bloc Québécois, but I certainly do not support Texas.


    Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the environment critic on the Conservative bench.
    I want to frame this question with a very important context. When we are taking a solution from one emergency, which is the climate emergency, to try to address another emergency, my recommendation to the member is that we can actually do both.
    The New Democratic Party has tabled an amendment to the Conservative motion that would take GST off home heating, something the New Democrats have fought for for a long time. If the member truly wants to ensure that a lower cost of living for Canadians is achieved and we actually get a result for Canadians, would he accept our amendment to ensure we get GST off home heating?


    Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be the environment and climate change critic, or shadow cabinet minister. I am very confident in the mandate that my leader gave to me. As a Canadian and Québécois, I am so proud to address this issue.
    For years we have been asking the government to lower taxes. We could not believe it when we realized a few months that the government was still keeping the plan to raise taxes not once, not twice but three times, tripling the Liberal carbon tax on April 1. If the government is serious about helping all Canadian families, it will scrap the target to triple the Liberal carbon tax.
    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to today's opposition motion put forward by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.
    This motion proposes to exempt carbon pricing from some fuels based on their targeted purpose on the premise that affordability and fighting climate change are mutually exclusive. From the outset, I want to make it clear that this is a false premise and I reject it. The environment and the economy go hand in hand, and one good example of this is the price on pollution.
    We know that the price on pollution has reduced carbon intensity in our economy since it was first introduced, and without it, our emissions would have been going up more than they have been. We know that the price on pollution is a market mechanism and is one of the most efficient ways to reduce carbon. It is widely held as the best way to do this from economists worldwide and has been instituted by many governments. We also know that this is a revenue-neutral price on pollution and that the money given back to Canadians who pay for it, for the most part, offsets any additional costs they incur.
    We have been targeting our relief to Canadians who need it most. A blanket exemption of the price on pollution for all Canadians would provide relief to Canadians who need it and to Canadians who can perhaps afford it. All Canadians should be doing their part to reduce pollution. I believe we are doing that, and we are compensating those who can afford it least by returning this money, which is paid through the climate action incentive.
    Canadians in provinces where this plan is in place have received a cheque. In Ontario, they would have received it starting last Friday from the climate action incentive. It gave them much-needed money at this time. The money they will be receiving back will be in excess of what they are contributing, if they are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint. It is this price signal that is so important for reaching our goals.
    We all know that we have had inflationary periods over the past and that commodity prices rise and fall. We have seen this happening for many reasons. The global impacts of the war on Ukraine, of the post-COVID economy and of so much more have hit people around the world. This will happen again, and while we know it is causing challenges for many Canadians and we are providing programs and incentives that are targeting the Canadians who need help the most, we are also aware that the climate crisis is not going away.
    We as a government have a commitment to Canadians. We have a commitment to businesses that are investing in clean tech. We have a commitment to Canadians, who are trying to make choices to reduce their carbon footprint, to maintain this price on pollution and not continually introduce waivers and exemptions along the way. They rely on our commitment to make investments. We need to continue to do that. If we want Canadians businesses to invest in clean energy and want Canadian businesses to invest in clean tech, we cannot go back and forth and say today it is on and tomorrow it is off.
    The Progressive Conservative Party used to be a party of business. It understood economics. I am really dismayed to see how the CPC has changed its bend. Now its math is even off. The price on pollution will be increasing from $50 a tonne to $65 a tonne on April 1, 2023. For most of Canada, that is after the coldest winter months, and in the math that I learned, that is not a doubling, a tripling or even a 35% rise in the price on pollution. I am not sure where the Conservatives are getting their economic or math abilities these days, but clearly they are not doing it themselves.
    To go back to the price on pollution and the need for it, we often talk about what it costs Canadians and the cost of a price on pollution, but we do not often talk about what it costs us if we do not do this. What does it cost us if we do not take action to fight climate change?


    Those costs are significant. We have seen them recently on the east coast with hurricane Fiona. We saw them on the west coast with atmospheric rivers, which none of us had heard of before but we now have in our vocabulary. These costs are significant. It is estimated that they are now $1.9 billion a year.
    Those costs and the effects they have on Canadians' day-to-day living, on small businesses, on the agricultural manufacturing sector, on farms, on so many people are real costs. They include the cost of insurance going up, the flooding of homes and the supply chains that are being affected, which ultimately affects inflation. These things are happening because of the climate crisis and because we are not doing enough.
    Therefore, in addition to the price on pollution, we have introduced other programs to try to expedite that change, because we know we have not met some of our targets. However, the price on pollution is effective and we have seen that because the intensity of carbon emissions has gone down. We cannot be short-sighted in this House. We cannot just be focused on the next six months. We have to look at the long term and do things for Canadians, both to build a stronger economy and to help Canadians with affordability while at the same fighting climate change.
    I am proud that our government is doing that. We are targeting support because we are cognizant of the effects of widespread spending on inflation. We are trying not to put in place a measure that all Canadians get. We are trying to put in a measure that Canadians who need it most would benefit from. Taking the price on pollution off of heating oil and propane at this time would benefit all Canadians who use that fuel. I use that fuel in my home and I am among the many Canadians who do not need that break currently.
    Let us focus on Canadians who need it most. Unlike Conservative policy with the Canada child care benefit, which was given to millionaires, we changed that and gave it to the people who need it most. That is what we have to do with our dollars now: focus on those who are really suffering and try to help all Canadians through other programs that we have put in place.
    We have one of the most ambitious programs to address climate change and we know that other countries around the world are joining us. In fact, one of the premises in the preamble of this motion is that we are the only country that has increased the price on pollution during this period, and that is not true. In Canada, we are doing it in a very orderly fashion, incrementally by $10 a year and $15 a year going forward. Germany, for example, put a price on pollution of $25 a tonne in 2021. It will be going up to over $55 a tonne in one fell swoop. That is not what we chose to do. We chose to do it incrementally and consistently, so that people knew what was going to happen, they could adjust to those price increases and it would allow businesses to respond accordingly.
    I know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast recognize that we need a government with a real plan of action, including the very effective market mechanism of the price on pollution. It is not sufficient, so we are moving forward with that. We are sticking with it while offering support to Canadians who need it most now. We will continue to do that and show that a green economy and green future go together. Let us keep fighting climate change while supporting Canadians.


    Madam Speaker, again I find it very interesting that real challenges being faced specifically by Atlantic Canadians and the cost of living crisis faced by so many are being dismissed by members of the government and also other left-leaning parties in this place. It is the definition of “elitism” to suggest that it is okay for us to raise prices as long as it is incrementally breaking people's banks just a little at a time. That is what the Liberals are suggesting.
    The Prime Minister was elected in 2015 on the promise that he would never go above $50 a tonne. He promised that until it was learned through a slip of the tongue by his former environment minister that it was actually going up to $170 a tonne and some reports would suggest that it may go up to $1,000 a tonne.
    Are the Liberals planning to continue to flip-flop and incrementally break Canadians at the bank?
    Madam Speaker, there have been two elections since 2015, just to remind the hon. member opposite. Canadians have chosen to return us with our climate plan, which they see as a real plan, as opposed to the flip-flopping on the Conservative side, which, at some points, wants a price on pollution and then changes to not having a price on pollution and then goes back to, perhaps, a price on pollution. I am not sure where they are now. One member here seems to support it while the leader does not.
    If he could clarify that for me, that would be great but, no, we are not flip-flopping. We are staying consistent in fighting climate change and we will continue to do that.


    Madam Speaker, once again, I would like to acknowledge my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and whom I hold in high regard.
    We must work to wean ourselves off oil, even if that thought gives some people hives. There are several ways to move away from oil, and the tax on pollution is one of them, but there is also the issue of energy efficiency. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.


    Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite, with whom I enjoy serving on the environment committee very much.
    I agree with you 100%. We know that we—
    I would like to ask the hon. member to address questions and comments through the Chair. It is not the first time.
    Madam Speaker, I do believe that we have to reduce reliance on fossil fuels for many reasons. Climate is, of course, one of them, but there is also the ups and downs in the commodity price, which has caused so much difficulty for Canadians in affording this.
    Certainly, we will continue to do that. We have to also look, though, at efficiency in heating homes. That is why we have the greener homes grant. We also need to look at efficiency in new buildings. As we are increasing our housing stock, we have to make sure that homes are being built with greater efficiency, so that home heating costs are not as great and we do not have to rely on propane and heating oil.
    Yes, I agree with the member opposite. I also know that there is a transition and while we are doing that, we have to ensure that our oil and gas sector is the cleanest in the world. Continuing to put in mechanisms during that transition is equally important.
    Madam Speaker, I want to start by recognizing that the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill is one of the strongest voices for the environment in the governing party caucus. She was also being honest in saying that the Liberal Party has not been able to meet the climate targets that have been set so far.
    One of the reasons why that is the case is that there has been a continued increase in subsidies to the very sector most responsible for the crisis we are in, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Can she comment on what she could do to help move away from further increasing, for example, tax credits to carbon capture and storage, to the tune of $8.6 billion?
    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's efforts on moving forward to combat climate change as well.
    What I would like to say to that is that we have made a commitment to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies and we are moving in that direction. I believe that we can do more and that we should do more to support renewable energy and to make that our primary focus. We know that fossil fuels will continue to be produced in Canada as we make the transition and that there are certain non-combustible uses that may remain. We need to make sure that we are supporting wind energy, solar and green hydrogen, and all of these other areas equally.


    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to this motion. I truly believe it comes from a good place in the Conservative Party. There are many members all throughout this House who are concerned about the rising cost of living, the costs our constituents face on a daily basis. I think that is where this motion comes from, this genuine concern.
    To all the members from the class of 2015, happy anniversary; it has been seven years. We can look back at all of the measures we have put in place on the cost of living, even starting from one of the first things we did, which was to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we could cut them for everyone else. We have the Canada child benefit, $10-a-day day care, dental care and rental supports, which the Conservative Party opposes. Whenever we are there to offer tax relief, the Conservative Party has stood up and said absolutely not.
    We did raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%. The Conservatives raised concerns about raising taxes. We raised them on the wealthiest individuals in this country and the Conservatives voted against it. It is a little rich, at this point, that they are starting to take interest. It is great that they are taking interest in the cost of living crisis. I really hope they change their minds on the current government initiatives before us, especially dental care.
    Every member of this House gets subsidized dental care from the taxpayer. It is shocking to see Conservative members of the House get up and say that 30% of people do not have access to dental care and that is okay. It is shocking that they are able to stand in this place and speak about three out of 10 of their constituents and say they do not deserve dental care, but we do.
    The one thing that is interesting in this entire debate on the cost of living, and I have not heard a Conservative member speak to it yet, is the cost of climate change. Just in the past seven years that many members have been sitting in this place, we have seen devastating forest fires, floods in British Columbia, droughts in the Prairies and intense storms throughout Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
    There is no movement. Actually, that is probably not true. There is movement in the Conservative Party on a climate plan, but it is backwards. I was pleasantly surprised as parliamentary secretary to the minister of environment and climate change when the Conservatives brought out a price on pollution. I said this is a positive thing for the country, even though I did not agree with how they were going to implement it. It was a positive thing for the country that ever major party going into the election acknowledged that pollution is bad and we should price pollution. There has been a change to that. Every member here from the Conservative Party ran on carbon tax.
     It is true. We are hearing some heckles that some of them did not and I guess they took matters into their own hands under the Reform Act and dealt with the source of the carbon tax, which was the hon. member for Durham, who stood up and said Canadians wanted answers on pollution. They are worried about their kids. I am worried for my kids.
    I am sure members are coming from that place where they are worried about their constituents, but I do not see them worried down the road. They do not seem to be worried about the increase in storms. They talk about the rising cost of food and that is a real worry for Canadians across the country, which should be raised, but they never once link it back to climate change. There are incredible droughts in the United States and in the Prairies, or the storm in Florida and how it is going to impact citrus prices. All of these things are connected and are going to increase the costs that we see every day. How will many of the constituents they have who have experienced extreme weather be able to afford insurance on their homes if they live near a river or the ocean?


    We hear Conservative leaders just dismiss that. There is no vision forward. There is no look ahead to ask, “What should we be looking at for our kids and for our grandkids?” It has always hearkened back to a price on pollution. Maybe there is a better plan out there by the Conservative Party to address climate change, but there is none. There is zero plan. There was a plan; now there is none. I am sure something will come out in the future. We have seen now three elections with an unserious plan for climate change, but Canadians are genuinely concerned because they can see it with their own eyes. I talk to my constituents. It does not rain the same anymore where I live.
    Every member of the House can see with their own eyes how the weather is different, how trends are changing and how the cost of that is impacting our constituents in every riding of this country. However, when the members of the Conservative Party talk about the cost of living, they never mention climate change as part of it. We can forget about the fact that there is a rebate on the price on pollution. The Conservatives seem to ignore that and forget about that every day. It is very convenient.
    They never even talk about the price of climate change. What is the cost to taxpayers to help people in Atlantic Canada? We will be there for them. What is the cost in British Columbia with floods? What was the cost in Alberta, to taxpayers, of fires? What is the cost to Canadian homes and households if there is a drought in the Prairies, or if there is a drought elsewhere, and the price of food goes up?
     If we are going to have a serious discussion about the cost of living, climate change needs to be part of that, but we see, time and time again, the Conservative Party being unserious about science. We saw it on vaccines. We have seen it now again on climate change. It has been disappointing to be here in this House and see it. Some members, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent who just spoke, say that climate change is a real thing. That is great. I know the Conservative Party itself voted that down in its last policy meeting. However, why is there no action? Why are those members not being heard by the leadership to say that we need to take serious action on the climate?
    My friend, the hon. member from Kingston, talked about a previous Conservative government in the 1980s that exercised global leadership in North America and helped institute a price on pollution. At times, it seems the hon. leader of the Conservative Party likes to engage in Thatcherism. I do not have a lot of positive things to say about that, but one of the things that—
    An hon. member: Oh, oh!
     Mr. Chris Bittle: Madam Speaker, we hear heckles that some of them like Margaret Thatcher, which is great. However, the one thing they do not like is that she warned the world early on that carbon dioxide was a problem, and Britain is now further ahead than Canada.
    It is shocking, this cognitive dissonance that is going on in the Conservative Party. They like Margaret Thatcher, but they do not like this one thing she talked about. They like science, sort of, but they do not necessarily like vaccines. They are not going to talk about real solutions on climate change, and they do not care about the next generation or the generation after that.
    I would take this motion a bit more seriously if there were actually a genuine plan and if there were something coming forward. It is very easy to feed on people's fears and anxieties, especially at a time like now, which is a time of extreme uncertainty, war and environmental turmoil, but the Conservatives offer nothing. They offer nothing in this place, except fear.
    We have brought forward solutions. We have brought forward real solutions to the environmental climate crisis. Maybe some day they will take it seriously, but after three elections, Canadians have seen that the Conservative Party of Canada does not take environmental climate change seriously and that is why the Conservatives are probably going to stay on that side of the House, unless they come to the table and address Canadians properly and talk about affordability in a real way and that means addressing climate change.


    Madam Speaker, I listened to the member across the way. It was a bit of a vitriol on my colleagues here and our stance on climate and the environment, which I think is much more progressive than what I have seen on that side of the House, because we are actually trying to come to solutions. However, solutions are one thing and talking about pretending to be serious is something else. I am going to catch him on this because he has failed every step he has made as far as reducing emissions goes. When we talk about being serious, I would like him to think seriously. I would like to go back to where the whole concept of carbon pricing started. It was advanced by a gentleman named William Nordhaus who won a Nobel Prize for it. A carbon tax was effectively one way of doing it.
    Let us take a look at how the current government talks about the carbon tax it has. It has to throw regulations on it, including the clean fuel standard, the clean electricity standard and numerous others. It is atrocious. If it is thinking about a market mechanism, this is not a market mechanism. It is a tax. Can the member address that?
    Madam Speaker, as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, this is not a tax. It is a price on pollution that is returned back to Canadians.
    The hon. member talked about solutions at the beginning of his question and then rambled on about nothing. Never do I hear a Conservative member stand up in this place and offer anything concrete, anything substantive on climate change. There is nothing, time after time, day after day, year after year, from any of them. They are laughing over there and smiling like this is some kind of joke that our children are going to live through, their children are going to live through and our grandchildren are going to live through. They do not care.


    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. However, anger is a not a good guide when it comes to this subject.
    We are talking about inflation and a suggestion that was made by the Conservative Party. I would like to know what my colleague opposite sees as alternative solutions for increasing seniors' purchasing power.
    What about making the economy more resilient, for example, by rebuilding the supply chain, reducing our dependence on oil or taking action to address the labour shortage?
    What other proposals does my colleague have?


    Madam Speaker, I think there were six questions bundled up in there, and I do not think I have enough time in my 30 seconds to respond to that.
    Even just looking at seniors with respect to the GST tax credit and rental supports, that is something that seniors and low-income seniors will benefit from. We have raised the OAS. We have raised the guaranteed income supplement. We have been there for seniors. The Conservatives are talking about the cost of living, but after the Conservative government increased the age people can collect OAS and GIS to 67, we lowered it back down. It did not increase the age its members could collect their pensions. They just increased it for seniors.
    Madam Speaker, what I believe is an important piece to this, which was mentioned by the Conservative bench and I want to give it credit for that, is the fact that the current Liberal government has increased the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases with its plan. However, what we are also seeing on the other end is that its budgets are continuing to pad the pockets of rich big oil and making sure they can continue to increase production. These two are connected.
    When will the current government come clean and actually do the work?
    Madam Speaker, with respect to subsidies, I know the previous Liberal member discussed our plan on fossil fuel subsidies, but it is interesting that the New Democrats in the last Parliament voted in favour of one of those increases, which was to clean up abandoned wells to help address the devastating economic impacts of oil and gas and the companies that have abandoned those oil and gas wells, and to put people back to work. Now, a year later, they are saying that they did not mean it when they voted for it. Let us have a serious discussion. The New Democrats were in favour of it before, and they are against it now.


    Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Lakeland.
    It is honour to once again rise on behalf of the people of Thornhill and bring their voices to Ottawa. I am proud to stand in this place on today's opposition motion from the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn, our new finance critic.
    Today's motion could not come at a more opportune time. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but winter is coming and it gets cold in this country. As it gets colder, Canadians are firing up their home furnaces to keep themselves warm. For many this year, the decision to turn on the heat will not be as easy as flicking a switch. Here is why.
    Most Canadians who pay for natural gas or electricity can expect their bills will rise by 50% to 100% on average this winter. I am going to say that again: The cost of natural gas or electricity will rise between 50% and 100%. There are some households that are going to pay up to $3,000 this winter in some parts of this country. Where would a family find $3,000? Where would a senior find $3,000 to pay for it?
    Knowing all of this, the government continues to push its plan to triple the carbon tax on seniors for the crime of heating their homes in February. It continues to push its plan to triple the carbon tax on families for the crime of heating their homes in February. The government continues to push its plan to triple the carbon tax on every single Canadian, wherever they live, whatever their walk of life, for the crime of heating their homes in February in Canada.
    The price of furnace oil hit $1.984 in Halifax last week. That has gone up about 30¢. It is not a luxury to heat one's home in Canada in the winter months, yet the government wants to punish people for doing it. It calls them polluters, seniors living in this country. Forty per cent of Atlantic Canadians are living in energy poverty, yet the government wants to hit them with a tax hike. They are not polluters.
    The debate today suggests that members of the House do not agree, and if Liberals are not going to back down on their plan to triple the tax, would they at least have the compassion to exempt home heating from a tax hike? Why would they not at least do that? Why would they not at least consider that?
    The government would say that the price of gas is out of its control, that the reasons are international and unpredictable, and that the government is a bystander in this country. It seems it has forgotten it is the governing party, while Canadians from coast to coast to coast are being punished by the influences that are a product of the government's own decision-making. There is an inflation crisis in this country, and the government is fuelling that crisis.
    The Liberals had an epiphany today. They have said they are going to solve this crisis. How do we trust a government that has created the crisis to now solve the crisis? The Governor of the Bank of Canada even agrees that policies of the government contributed to increased inflation. We would not know it from those opposite who claim that it could not possibly be true, that nothing happening today is happening because of their decisions. They are bystanders in their own government, and we are all just watching the show. Everything is outside of their control, at least when it is convenient.
    We have 40-year highs of inflation. People are struggling just to afford the basics: food, gas, electricity, a home. Nearly 50% of people in this country are within $200 of insolvency. More Canadians than ever before are using food banks. We are an advanced economy. This is Canada. They are using food banks at a rate 20% higher. The sky-high costs of home heating this winter will be too much for too many Canadians, and we do not have to wait.
     Everyone except my hon. colleagues on the other side are asking why. Why has it gotten so out of control? Why is a basic necessity of life so unaffordable? Why is it getting harder and harder to afford anything, let alone to get ahead? If we listen to any of the answers from the government, we would hear talk about international phenomenon and foreign wars, along with empty words and slogans about failed programs that only drive up the cost of living and add more debt that the next generation will have to pay.


    The Liberals talk about our performance in the G7 as though it is something to marvel at. Here is a fact: Our country has the worst projected GDP growth of any advanced economy. It is last, and it is on page 25 of their own budget document, in last place. Enough with the talking points and the excuses. We know what the real answer is. The deliberate actions of this government are driving up the cost of everything in this country, and ignoring it has become an embarrassing defence of the indefensible.
    The Liberals gave us a tax plan disguised as an environment plan, which has been directly cited for higher energy prices. The carbon tax is working so well that it has already been raised three times, yet we are still no closer to meeting any single environmental target, and emissions have gone up. There is no member in the House who can say that we raised taxes on Canadians and emissions went down because it did not happen. We have not hit a single target.
    Today, we have the opportunity to give Canadians a break and maintain the Liberals' record of not hitting a single target. They are not going to do it if we cut the carbon tax. They did not do it with the carbon tax, and they are not going to do it if we raise the carbon tax. Nobody on the other side can tell me how high the carbon tax has to go for them to hit a single target. Not one of those members can answer that question.
    Canada is the only country in the G7 that has raised fuel taxes during a period of record-high inflation, which is another fact. Canada raised taxes when more than 50 other countries, other governments worldwide, provided tax relief to ease the burden of inflation at this time. What do other countries know that we do not?
    We have so many natural resources in this country, and that includes vast reserves of oil and natural gas. Instead of promoting production here in Canada, lowering prices and creating good-paying jobs, we are chasing opportunity out of our country with more red tape, regulations and policies that make it clear to job creators that they just might be more valued somewhere else.
    When I say that everybody knows about the Canadian cost of living crisis, that includes the Prime Minister and the members on his front bench. They have admitted that prices are out of control, and they recognize that people are having trouble paying their bills. On Monday, the Minister of Finance said that times are only going to get tougher, and we know that it is due to a government failure to control the drivers of inflation. They are the ones doing it.
     Even though Liberals know that Canadians are struggling, they are serving up more punishing policies to go along with the freezing cold temperatures that we are about to have. They are going to triple the carbon tax. The government has no plan to support our domestic oil and gas industry, and it is counting on the path of reckless government spending that will drive up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay.
    Before members of the House disparage the oil and gas industry more than they already have today, I will remind everyone that Canadian oil and gas has the highest ESG rating of anywhere in the world, and we cannot build a single electric car without it. Oil and gas has been the single driver and contributor to our GDP, and that is probably why page 25 of this budget says that we have the worst projected growth in the G7, and among advanced economies.
    It will become clear to Canadians soon that rising prices on food and transportation, and the 100% increases on home heating, will be directly attributed to burdening Canadians with a rising carbon tax and restricting resource development in the name of an ideological crusade that does not even reduce emissions. Let that sink in. Not a single target has been hit.
    Canadians know that this is not the right path, and even the Liberals know it. The Liberal premier of Newfoundland said that the Prime Minister's policies are imposing “considerable economic hardship and stress”.
    The Liberals have an opportunity to exempt home heating from their new taxes. It is time for the government to stand up for ordinary Canadians, whom they used to represent, and the middle class it promised to help. It is time for the government to give Canadians a break, and give them back control over their lives and their thermostats.


    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have loved avoiding three simple facts throughout this debate.
    The first is that climate change is real and carbon pricing works. I appreciated the note about William Nordhaus and his Nobel Prize explaining just that.
    The second is that the price on pollution is not a tax. When the Conservatives say “fuel taxes”, they are saying the Supreme Court of Canada wrong. It is not a tax. It is a rebate program, and it helps Canadians. Canadians have just received their climate action incentive payments, which is something the Conservatives like to avoid talking about.
    The third is that we are delivering on dental care and rental supports, and the Conservatives are going to vote against them. By all accounts, they do not want to help lower-income kids get their teeth fixed. They do not want to see $500 put into the pockets of people who are stressed out about paying their rent.
    Why is it that the Conservatives are so focused on going back to a time when they were focused on sending cheques to millionaires, making tax breaks for the wealthy and driving Canadians further and further into debt, just as they did when they were in power?
    Madam Speaker, more than 60% of Canadians in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba pay more in carbon taxes than they receive back. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually—
    That is wrong.
    I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary there is no opportunity for rebuttal unless it is through another question or comment.
    I will allow the hon. member for Thornhill to answer without any further interruption.
    Madam Speaker, perhaps the member can take that up with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This carbon tax has not hit a single environmental target. It has not reduced emissions. It started at $30, and then it went to $40. It is now $50, going to $170. At what point are they going to stop this madness?


    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
    What are her thoughts on the statement by the European Central Bank's chief economist about how boosting the most vulnerable people's purchasing power is the best way to fight this round of inflation, and how this policy should be paid for through redistribution, which means drastically increasing taxes on the very rich?
    Do she and her party agree with this principle?


    Madam Speaker, more than 50 countries, including those in Europe, which he referenced, have cut fuel taxes or have cut a tax during this period of inflationary pressure. When the government spends money on programs, some of those programs do not hit very many people at all, and that drives the cost of everything else up. We know that. Bank economists here have said that. Without vaporizing all of the money it is giving back to Canadians, on top of the money Canadians are not getting back when they pay more carbon taxes than they get back, it does not matter. It is fuelling an inflation crisis. Everybody knows it.
    Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Thornhill on the role of deputy leader of the opposition.
    There are points we can agree on, such as the growth of the reliance on food banks in this country and the need to give Canadians a break. My ask for the member is around the NDP policy to have a GST exemption on home heating bills. Is that something the Conservatives would support?
    Madam Speaker, it has gotten out of control. The inflation crisis has gotten out of control in this country, and it has been fuelled by the government. We brought a motion to the House to exempt fuel from GST, and NDP members voted against it.
    I am surprised to see that, when things have gotten so bad that we are talking about little old ladies in Nova Scotia having to pay $3,000 to heat their house, they have somehow had a religious moment and they are now going to support it. We are asking the government right now to cut taxes on fuel before the winter. The question is simple. Will they support it or not?
    Madam Speaker, when it comes to affordability and the cost of fuel, what is not being discussed here, as it should be, is the reality of the gouging from the oil and gas industry that is contributing to exactly what the member for Thornhill was just mentioning. Would the member for Thornhill and deputy leader of the official opposition comment on the need to address the gouging from the oil and gas sector in the midst of a climate emergency?
    Madam Speaker, I will address the gouging the government does in the pockets of consumers through its carbon tax. I will say it again. We have the highest ESG rating in the country in our oil and gas industry. One cannot build a single renewable without it, and it has been a driver, the singular highest driver, of our GDP. Now we are projected to have the lowest GDP growth. That is a problem.


     Madam Speaker, I thank my deputy leader for her fiery and steadfast advocacy, not only for people who are struggling to make ends meet but also for the oil and gas industry. That is important to the Canadian economy and everyone in every region.
    In December 2019, the Prime Minister broke his promise and announced that he would increase his carbon tax 566% over the level at the time. The Liberals applauded while Conservatives said what it was, which is a tax plan. It is not an environmental one, and it would inevitably cost Canadian families more to heat their homes, get to work and buy groceries. It would literally make everything more expensive for everyone.
    Experts such as former Liberal MP Dan McTeague warned, “the price of the carbon tax on natural gas for home heating will now cost more than the price of the natural gas itself” and that it would “add an increase...of $900/year to an average residential natural gas bill. This will effectively double most homeowners home heating costs.”
    A CBC column even cited the former parliamentary budget office Kevin Page's prediction that the Liberals' irresponsible big spending would create pressure to hike the carbon tax even higher because, of course, it goes into general revenue.
    Incredibly, the Liberals have claimed that they will not raise taxes or the cost of living for Canadians. Only two years ago, the Prime Minister was asked if he would raises taxes, and he said, “we are not going to be saddling Canadians with extra costs”.
    In 2019, when asked if the Liberals would increase the carbon tax, the then environment minister said, “The plan is not to increase the price post-2022.” Well, it is 2022, and it is clear that these were all empty words, since they are going to triple their carbon tax on everything.
    It was not too long ago that the Prime Minister also said, “Whatever approach is chosen, this policy would be revenue-neutral for the federal government. All revenues generated under this system would stay in the province or territory where they are generated.” The problem with that claim is that this is not true either.
    GST is charged on top of the carbon tax and the government's own balance sheet shows that revenue is almost a quarter of a billion dollars. As Conservatives warned repeatedly, as it did with inflation, the carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, since the government pockets hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of Canadians.
    Most Canadians actually do not get back more than what they pay in federal carbon tax. Rebates do not and will never cover the direct and indirect cost hikes on everything caused by the carbon tax. For families in Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nunavut, the fuel charge backstop costs them more than they get back. That is the truth. After it is all said and done, the carbon tax costs households more than $1,100 in Manitoba, almost $1,500 in Ontario and Saskatchewan, and more than $2,000 in Alberta.
    Of course, the carbon tax, as we have always warned, has a disproportionate impact on rural, remote and low-income Canadians. Whereas farmers get the same rebates as urban Canadians, they also pay tens of thousands of dollars a year more in additional carbon tax costs.
     Grain Farmers of Ontario, for example, says that it will cost more than $36,000 a year on the average 800-acre farm, not including the costs of heating their homes and their barns, which, of course, already costs rural and remote Canadians more in the first place. A second carbon tax is coming too. Energy and industrial policy experts report that it will cost every Canadian almost $1,300 more, and it will hike household energy costs by 2.2% to 6.5% with the Liberal fuel standard.
    Conservatives have heard loud and clear from Canadians the disastrous toll of the Liberal carbon tax on their ability to afford to make ends meet and to purchase basic necessities such as gas, groceries and home heating. This Conservative motion asks for real, tangible and immediate action. It is asking for a way to ease the government-imposed burden on Canadians right now, to cancel the carbon tax on all home heating fuels.
    Why? As Conservatives have had to say over and over, home heating is not a luxury in Canada. It is just ridiculous to have to remind the NDP-Liberal costly coalition that Canada gets really cold during the winter. The average temperature in Atlantic Canada is always below zero. In Nunavut, it ranges from -15°C to -40°C.
    On my farm in Lakeland, it is an average -15°C, but let me tell the members, we sure learned last December that we better calve later in the spring when, for about three weeks, the temperature hovered around -50°C, and it was lower at night. It is not an exaggeration to say that Canadians will literally freeze if they cannot afford the cost of home heating, yet the Liberals just keep driving it up.
    In eastern Canada, people have to rely on heating oil, with 63% of Prince Edward Islanders and 47% of Nova Scotians using it to heat their homes.


    Those Atlantic Canadians who have to use oil for home heating will face an average loss of $900 more a year because of the carbon tax. They also will be disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax 2.0, the Liberal fuel standard. The added costs are enormous. Furnace oil in Newfoundland and Labrador has already increased 54% compared to last year. It is just cruel that the Liberals tried to justify making that even worse and are ignoring the pleas from the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.
    Around 47% of Canadians use natural gas to heat their homes. In Alberta, the average household pays $312 in carbon tax alone on natural gas. That will go up to more than $1,200 because of the Liberals' carbon tax hikes.
    Ontarians currently pay $235 in carbon tax on their gas bill. That will triple to $745. We already know that gas bills have already increased across the country to almost $1,500 a year and these guys are just going to go ahead and make it worse anyway.
    Propane is used disproportionately by low-income and rural Canadians. It will cost almost $700 a year more to fill up propane tanks because of the Liberals' costly carbon tax hikes. All these costs are, of course, more intense during colder months. Home heating will double, on average, for Canadians this winter and some will face a 300% increas