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 accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 331
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 13, 2024
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 331
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, June 13, 2024
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
House of Commons Calendar
Commissioner of Lobbying
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to section 11 of the Lobbying Act, the report of the Commissioner of Lobbying for the fiscal year ended March 31.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
[English]
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(a) of the Parliament of Canada Act, the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[Translation]
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to lay upon the table the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the Conflict of Interest Act for the fiscal year ended March 31.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
[English]
Veterans Ombudsman
Government Response to Petitions
[Translation]
Nature Accountability Act
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act on the court challenges program. The committee studied the bill and decided to report it back to the House with amendments.
National Housing Strategy Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, An Act to amend the National Housing Strategy Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill to amend the National Housing Strategy Act. I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Hamilton Centre, who is a champion for human rights, for seconding this bill.
While the act states that “the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right”, in reality, this is not happening. Without access to adequate housing, people are forced to live on the street.
Canada's housing crisis is not just about building more, faster. It needs to take a human rights approach to housing and build housing that people can afford. Otherwise, encampments for the unhoused in communities across the country will only continue to grow. Forced decampments and evictions are not the answer. Often, these things lead to further destabilization, loss of community and safety for encampment residents, and exacerbation of trauma.
The bill aims to amend the National Housing Strategy Act on recommendations of the federal housing advocate to prohibit forced decampments on federal land and to consult with other levels of government so that alternatives to forced decampments are put in place following meaningful engagement with encampment residents. I hope all members of the House will support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Department of Citizenship and Immigration Ombud Act
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a private member's bill to establish an independent ombud's office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, with a mandate to examine the department's policies to ensure the principles of fairness and equity are upheld.
I thank my friend and colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for seconding the bill. He is a champion for equality and justice.
The bill aims to create a dedicated oversight body to ensure fairness and accountability within IRCC. The ombud's office would serve as an impartial entity to address complaints and concerns by providing an accessible platform for grievances. This office would help in examining concerns with differential treatment and discriminatory practices in IRCC's policies and programs and would be able to look at trends and patterns to identify systemic issues.
The bill would enhance trust in Canada's immigration system by ensuring it operates justly, effectively and equitably for everyone. I hope all members of the House will support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Framework on the Access to and Use of Cash Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to table a bill calling for a framework on the access to and the use of cash. As all economies are, our economy is driven by the exchange of goods and services, or in other words, commerce. Typically, the settlement for that exchange is currency. In a world where commerce is moving at a rapid pace toward plastic, online and digital currencies, many Canadians, including many in my riding of Provencher, are concerned with their ability to access and use cash as currency.
For millions of Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable folks in our population, physical cash is essential to everyday life. Likewise, charities, community organizations and remote communities rely on cash to achieve their worthy goals. Finally, in a world where governments, banks and corporations are increasingly infringing on the privacy rights of Canadians, cash remains the only truly anonymous form of payment.
The bill calls for a national framework to ensure continued access to and use of cash in Canada. It would amend the Currency Act to limit the Minister of Finance's ability to arbitrarily and unilaterally call in bank notes. It would also amend the Bank of Canada Act to ensure that the central bank does not develop or replace hard currency with a digital dollar.
This common-sense legislation would benefit vulnerable Canadians the most, as well as those who work so hard to support them. I hope the House will support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-401, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (northern residents deduction).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce an act to amend the Income Tax Act with a northern residents deduction. This would increase the daily deduction that can be claimed for residing in a certain northern zone, tie that amount to the consumer price index and remove the distinction between the prescribed intermediate and northern zones by merging the two.
[Translation]
All of the Yukoners I talk to are deeply concerned about the cost of living, and I am committed to bringing down the cost of living in our territory.
[English]
Since its introduction in 1986, the northern residents deduction has helped make life in the north more affordable, but this deduction has not kept pace with the rising costs northerners face. I hope the bill will help carry us towards a goal that many of my constituents and northern residents have advocated for, where the cost of northern life, modern life in the north, can be recognized and adjusted to today's and tomorrow's realities.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Marine Liability Act
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my colleague, the MP for Courtenay—Alberni, for seconding this very important bill. Styrofoam, plastics and toxic chemicals, refrigerators, urinal mats and plastic pink unicorns are not items that one would expect to find in the ocean, yet this is exactly what is being found from cargo container spills. These things pollute marine ecosystems and wash up on Canadian shores.
As extreme weather events become more common and the demand for goods continues to escalate, it is necessary to develop a clear national strategy to not only clean up container spills in a timely, effective manner when they occur but to prevent them from happening in the first place.
We cannot sit by and wait for another disaster to occur. Today, I am tabling the bill to highlight this important issue once again. I call on the government to move forward with necessary solutions through amending the Marine Liability Act, by adding a national strategy respecting pollution caused by shipping containers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-403, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan (deeming provision).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present my private member's bill to amend the Income Tax Act and the Canada pension plan. I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for seconding the bill, as well as for his continued advocacy for disability justice. The bill aims to make it easier for people living with disabilities to access the benefits they are entitled to. Currently, applicants to provincial and federal disability benefits and the disability pension plan need to finalize two different applications, which require many steps and a lot of bureaucracy. With my bill, people with disabilities would only need to apply to their provincial plan; the federal government would recognize their application immediately.
I am grateful for all the work of the advocates in my riding who have brought this issue forward, including Mark Schuller, Steve Palmer, and people across the country who dedicate their lives to disability justice.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
National Conversion Therapy Awareness Day Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-404, An Act to establish National Conversion Therapy Awareness Day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on January 7, 2022, the law banning conversion therapy officially came into force in Canada. Unfortunately, the reality is that a legacy still exists with the effects that were felt by so many people throughout our country who were subjected to conversion therapy.
During the deliberations in the House of Commons, and in committee specifically, two people contributed immensely to the amending of the bill and the final result of it. They were Ben Rodgers, who is from the Kingston area, and Veronica Merryfield from Cape Breton—Canso, the riding of the seconder to this bill. This bill seeks to continue their work. They came together and developed a network to support individuals throughout our country who have been affected by conversion therapy.
This bill would attempt to establish a national day of awareness for conversion therapy on January 7 of each year, which is the date the law came into force in Canada in 2022.
I recognize I do not have precedence, and I do not have an opportunity to necessarily bring this forward for debate. However, I sincerely hope that, in the interests of all Canadians, in the same manner we were able to unanimously adopt a ban on conversion therapy, perhaps, through consultation with other parties, we will be able to do something similar with this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present a petition signed by the great people from the freedom-loving riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, as well as from Sudbury, Nipissing—Temiskaming and Nickel Belt.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to refrain from endorsing the pandemic treaty drafted by the World Health Organization, which has never had a single debate or been voted on in the House of Commons.
The concern is that, by agreeing to this legally binding treaty, Canada would be signing away its own sovereignty, allowing UN bureaucrats, who are unaccountable to Canadians, the power to override our laws, rights and freedoms.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is with emotion today that I table petition e-4915 signed by more than 1,000 people. This petition is the fruit of efforts by the family of Nancy Lefrançois and Loïc Chevalier, who were both victims of a terrible multi-vehicle collision.
The driver, who was the subject of a Canada-wide warrant, has never been brought to justice because he is no longer on Canadian soil. The petition calls on the government to review legal mechanisms so as to retain in Canada any individual, including foreign nationals, under investigation for a criminal offence causing death and that the government propose appropriate legislative amendments.
The petitioners understand that the solutions are not simple, but they remain convinced that it is important for justice to be served. In short, the petition calls on this government to propose tangible measures to prevent such individuals from escaping Canadian justice.
The petitioners hope that the government will take the time to reflect on the possible options, including real solutions to improve Canada's justice system in favour of the victims.
The family of Nancy and Loïc deserve a serious and detailed response from the government.
[English]
I want to remind members that petitions are being presented, but there are conversations going on, so I would ask members to please be respectful.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît is rising on a point of order.
Madam Speaker, when I was speaking in French, I know that some colleagues on both sides of the House were not wearing their earpiece and therefore did not understand what I was saying. There are people in the gallery who came to listen to what I was saying and noticed that I did not have the respect of the House when I tabled a petition that means so much to them.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. These individuals are calling upon the House of Commons to do several things.
First, they ask that we place sanctions consistently on foreign nationals who are responsible for gross violations of human rights against Rwandans, Hazaras, Tibetans and Tigrayans, and place further sanctions on foreign nationals who are responsible for gross violations of human rights against Uyghurs and Tamils. They go on to ask that we conduct a comprehensive review of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act to assess why it has not been used in over 10 years to prosecute war criminals and criminals against humanity. Finally, they are asking that we make every effort to resettle genocide victims to Canada, including members of the Uyghur, Tigrayan, Hazara, Tibetan, Rwandan and Tamil communities.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over a thousand people across the country. They are calling on the government to take immediate action to address the humanitarian crisis faced by refugees from Gaza by treating them equitably and increasing refugee admissions to Canada.
They call on the government to, one, accept applications from within and from outside Gaza, including from refugees who have made it to neighbouring countries; two, extend the same rights and protections to refugees from Gaza as it does to refugees from other conflict-affected regions, which would include providing access to asylum procedures, legal representation, health care and social services to ensure their safety and well-being; and, three, significantly increase the number of refugees admitted from Gaza to at least 10,000 individuals. This increase would be necessary to address the scale of the crisis and to provide for refugees in urgent need of protection and assistance. Finally, they call on the government to allow families in Canada to sponsor their relatives who are impacted by the conflict in Gaza through an expedited process. This would reunite families that have been torn apart by war and provide them with the support and care they need to rebuild their lives in safety.
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.
I rise for the 42nd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed with the alarming levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Jail has become a revolving door for repeat offenders. Bill C-75 allows violent offenders who are in jail in the morning to be back out on the street in the afternoon. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home.
The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.
Madam Speaker, today I rise on behalf of correctional officers in the Pacific region who are calling for an end to the needle exchange program put in place by the Liberal government.
Correctional officers are calling for an effective strategy to stop drones from dropping drugs onto prison grounds. We need a drone dereliction strategy.
Questions on the Order Paper
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing
That an order of the House do issue to the government for a copy of the government's economic analysis on the impact of the federal fuel charge and the output-based pricing system referenced in the response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's information request IR0776, provided that it shall be laid upon the table, in both official languages and without redaction, no later than Monday, June 17, 2024.
[Translation]
Today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, the common-sense Conservative.
We just learned, moments ago, that the government has been keeping a $20-billion secret. Common-sense Conservatives have been demanding that the government release the real cost of the carbon tax, after the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that there was a report the government had been covering up and that he was gagged from releasing the report about the actual cost to Canadians. Now, because common-sense Conservatives brought forward this motion before the House, and because of our relentless questioning and the pressure that is weighing heavily on Liberal MPs, the government has finally relented and has released part of the information. It had to be pulled out like a rotten tooth, and rotten it is.
It is $20 billion per year in lost GDP, as a result of the carbon tax. That works out to $1,200 per family in extra annual costs for Canadians. Twenty billion dollars for 17 million families is $1,200 a family in higher costs that the Prime Minister has been covering up. Not once, in any tables that he released, which claimed that Canadians were somehow better off with the carbon tax and rebate, did the Prime Minister include these economic costs that he knew existed, because he wanted to continue to spread the falsehood. He wanted to tell Canadians that paying more for gas, heat and groceries would make them better off, just like he claimed that raising their income tax would make the middle class better off. Ninety per cent of middle-class income taxpayers are paying more now than they were paying nine years ago when he promised to cut their taxes.
Yesterday, we tested the Liberals' claim that only the $800,000-a-year investment banker, who is in the top 0.13%, would pay this new job-killing tax on home builders, farmers, small business owners and health care workers. We tested it by simply saying that if that were the case, the Liberals would amend their bill to say that anybody who is part of the 99.87% of the population would be excluded from any new capital gains taxes. The minister refused to do that because we all know that it would be plumbers, electricians, carpenters, farmers, small business owners and restaurant owners who would pay this Liberal tax increase.
What we are coming to understand is that we cannot believe a word the Prime Minister says about money or about taxes because at the end of the day, he has an insatiable appetite for other people's money. He wants to stuff the face of his morbidly obese government with the hard-earned tax dollars of working-class Canadians, and he has the full support of the greedy NDP to do it. The New Democrats believe that the people's money is their money, and they are here for one purpose: to help the Prime Minister vacuum up every single nickel that hard-working Canadians, including entrepreneurs, earn on the ground.
Common-sense Conservatives are exactly the opposite. People will notice that we take delight in the fact that, in this place, we do not fit in. We stand out as the only party that would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
[Translation]
The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of a tax hike for Quebec entrepreneurs, farmers, doctors and home builders. According to the Bloc Québécois, Quebeckers should give more of their money to the massive Liberal federal government.
The Liberal Bloc is part of a centralist coalition. We are the only party that wants to allow Quebec entrepreneurs, farmers, doctors and small businesses to keep their money and be masters in their own house.
That is also the case with the Quebec City tramway. This project would cost at least $11 billion, or $28,000 per greater Quebec City family. If those families were asked if they wanted $28,000 or a tramway 10 years from now, I think it would be an easy decision for them. Quebec City residents prefer to have the money in their pocket. They want a third link to connect the two sides of the river.
That is what common sense is all about, and we are the only party that thinks this way. We do not want a white elephant. We want to fix the budget and axe the taxes. That is common sense.
[English]
Here we are today with the government again raising taxes and, again, making claims that are demonstrably false when we look at the government's own documents.
When I look at the capital gains issue, first, the government claimed that only 44,000 people would pay. That is a small number. They all live on a hill somewhere. Then, the government admitted that 300,000 separate businesses, most of them small businesses, would pay. Therefore, there are 300,000 businesses, but only 44,000 would pay. I find it hard to believe that each of these 44,000 people own six different businesses. In reality, those 300,000 businesses probably have millions of owners and definitely have millions of employees. All of them would pay the tax.
Then, the government members said that they were very concerned that welders are paying a higher tax rate than investors. We have a National Occupation Classification for a welder. We could say, in the law, that anyone who is a welder, as defined by the National Occupation Classification, is excluded, but the minister would not do that. I said to exclude the NOC for carpenters. She did not want to do that either. Why do we not exclude nurses? Nurses who invest in rental properties or who maybe have a family cottage they may want to sell could be excluded. We could look up the NOC code for nurses, and pop it right into the Income Tax Act. It could say that no nurse would pay that higher tax rate. The government was not willing to do that either.
In fact, we know that, because they want to tax nurses, carpenters, welders and electricians. They want to tax everybody. In fact, I went even further and asked why we do not just exclude everybody who makes less than $120,000 a year. The government did not want to do that either. It turns out that, if none of these people were affected by the tax, the minister should have said that it was easy and that she could have it drafted up this afternoon and could have it put in the bill with no problem, but of course she did not. She knows exactly what she is doing. She is putting her greedy hands in the pockets of working-class people and she is stealing their money, just like she did with the carbon tax, just like the government did when it raised income tax and just like it did in 2017 when it went after our small business tax creators.
The good news is that we have defenders of the taxpayers in this party. The tax fighters are all on this side of the house: the common-sense Conservatives. If someone out there is working hard, has seen their housing costs double, is worried about losing their home and has two or even three jobs just to avoid eviction, they might feel a loss of hope. The good news is that life was not like this before the current Prime Minister and the NDP, and it will not be like this after they are gone.
We are going to bring home the Canada that we knew and that we still love, by axing the tax system, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. We would once again make this a country where hard work would pay off; where entrepreneurs would be incentivized, rewarded and honoured, not demonized; where we would not turn workers against business owners, but would turn workers into business owners; and where hard work would bring powerful paycheques and pensions that would buy affordable food, gas and homes in safe neighbourhoods.
That is what the common people deserve. The common sense of the common people is united for our common home. It is their home, my home and our home. Let us bring it home.
Madam Speaker, what we are seeing here is nothing more than a desperate attempt by Conservatives to deflect from what is really going on.
The Conservative leader brought forward a motion to the House today, and then he barely even spoke to it because he got the data, moments ago, that he had been asking for: not a report, but data. He got all that data, but the data did not fit his narrative, just like we hear the Conservative leader today go on about his new-found desire to be against a capital gains tax. For two months, Conservatives sat silent and would not say a word about it. Their leader would not say a word about the capital gains tax. Now, after two months, we are expected to believe that he has suddenly come to the realization that this is going to be bad for Canadians. No. He is trying to tap into anxieties and fears of Canadians.
What I want to know about this motion is this: What is his plan for the environment? It cannot be more than slogans about technology.
Madam Speaker, it is hard to figure out what part of that meandering, rambling rant to focus on.
Let us start with the two months. The two months that went by was the time during which the minister refused to introduce any bill to actually apply her job-killing tax increase on home building, on houses, on health care, on small businesses and on Canadians. She went two months, and it was not because of some brilliant strategy, but because she did not have any clue what she was doing. She did not know how to write the rules that she had blurted out in her budget. Then, she spent months flipping and flopping behind the scenes, telling doctors, high-tech investors and home builders that they might get an exemption if they were very nice and if their lobbyists sucked up enough. Finally, she introduced a bill, and within a day of its introduction, we stated our position on it. We are against this latest job-killing tax on Canadians.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am always blown away by just how much the Conservative Party leader fancies himself a god who will solve all the problems with his magic wand. I find it fascinating.
First, is the Conservative Party leader able to stop infantilizing Quebeckers about the choice they will make on their mobility?
Second, if one day the Conservative Party leader becomes prime minister, would he commit to giving Quebec the money it needs to be able to make its choices and decide about its mobility for itself? Does he pledge to commit these funds without conditions?
Madam Speaker, I am the only leader who listens to Quebec City residents, 70% of whom oppose the tramway. We know why: It is a big white elephant. It is going to cost $11 billion. That means $28,000 per family in the Quebec City area. That means $28,000 for a project that will not benefit the majority of people.
As far as I am concerned, we should reduce waste, support common-sense projects like a future third link, and fix the budget. This is not magic, as the member suggests, but common sense.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it is fascinating that all of Canada is asking about foreign interference and about actually having credible leadership on this, yet we have one leader who either cannot get security clearance or refuses to get security clearance, so he is in here doing another gong show on the same issue, again and again, yet he has not explained to Canadians why he cannot get security clearance.
What kind of leader refuses to understand the threats to our country? I would like to hear from the member for Stornoway.
Madam Speaker, I would call him the member for Timmins—James Bay, but I am not sure he has ever actually been to Timmins. He does not live in his riding and never goes to his riding. People in that community think he is in the witness protection program; that is, if they have heard of him at all. When I last said this in the House of Commons, a week later he decided to turn tail and run. He announced that he was not running again, because he knew very well that the common-sense loggers, miners and farmers were going to fire him in the next election and elect a common-sense Conservative government.
Order. I want to remind members that they have had an opportunity to ask questions. They should wait until there are other opportunities. I also want to remind all members not to interrupt.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): There are members on both sides of the House who do not seem to want to heed the direction of the Chair. I would ask them to please do so, because it becomes very problematic in the House and it impacts the Orders of the Day.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.
Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals think they got ahead of this and cut us off at the pass. However, the fact is that nothing has really changed. The carbon tax cover-up continues, and I will tell everyone why. The Liberals across the aisle have big smiles on their faces, thinking they sure pulled one over on the Conservatives.
I have in my hands the article from the CBC. It says, “CBC filed an access to information request for the unpublished data. [The Minister of the Environment]'s department proactively disclosed the data to CBC and other journalists and posted it online today.” Here is the catch, “CBC's access to information request has not yet been fulfilled.” What else is it about the carbon tax that the government is continuing to hide? Nothing has changed and the Conservative motion is completely in order and appropriate.
We did learn one thing from this article, and that is that the Liberals are going to tax the GDP by $20 billion. It says that the carbon tax, by 2030, is going to cause the GDP to fall by $20 billion, from $2.68 trillion to $2.66 trillion. That is about $1,200 per family across the country.
This is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said he was really concerned about. This is an exchange from the committee meeting on Monday last week.
I asked him the following question, “Mr. Giroux, in your earlier testimony, you said that you understood that the government had economic analysis on the carbon tax that it has not released. Are you saying that the government has not been transparent with the analysis it has?” His response was, “I mentioned that the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS, the output-based pricing system. We've seen that—staff in my office— but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.”
I then asked, “The government has given you their analysis, but they have put a gag on you, basically, saying you can't talk about it.” His response was, “That is my understanding.”
Mr. Giroux went on later to say that the government's analysis confirmed the report that the PBO had already published, and concluded by saying, “That's why I'm comfortable with what we have already published”. In other words, when he said that Canadians are worse off, the government's data confirmed that. I will elaborate on that a little more in a moment.
I followed up with him and asked, “Are you saying the report the government did on the carbon tax, the report that they provided to you, confirms the analysis that you have done on the carbon tax?” Then Mr. Matier, from his office, responded:
Mr. Giroux filed a formal information request to Environment and Climate Change Canada [asking for] the underlying economic impacts related to the emissions reductions that the government published related to carbon pricing back in late March or early April. They provided us with their estimates on real GDP, on labour income, on capital income, and they indicated on the response form that these were confidential and that we could not disclose—
That is the exchange, and so began the carbon tax cover-up, which continues to this moment, notwithstanding the incomplete information that the government has decided to give to the CBC. The Conservatives are going to find out what the rest of that information is, by the way. We are not going to let this go until Canadians know the complete truth about the carbon tax.
The department gave the data to the PBO. The data confirmed his findings, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that people pay more. The Liberals tried to muzzle him from talking about it. The only reason they released these bits and pieces of data that helped make their case that eight out of 10 people were better off was because the Conservatives put them under relentless pressure and embarrassed them into doing something about it. However, they have made it even worse, because providing part of the truth is, in itself, misleading Canadians. They need to put out the whole story.
When we finally see the report, hopefully after CBC's access to information request is granted, we will see what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying. I have no doubt in the veracity of what he is saying, that the government's own data confirms his findings that Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back. Those were the PBO's findings.
Fast-forward a year, when the PBO announces that he made a slight error when he prepared his report, but that he does not believe it will change his findings. The Liberals seized on that error, seizing an opportunity to attack his credibility. They attacked the PBO, who is an independent officer of Parliament, which is shameful. In fact, they attacked him in committee, and that is when Mr. Giroux said that he had received government data that confirmed his results.
We do not see that in the CBC article. The government held that information back. It needs to release it. We cannot make this stuff up. On November 4, 2015, the Prime Minister wrote an open letter to Canadians, in which he said that the government needed to be open by default. It is a famous letter and it has been quoted in the House many times. Those were high-sounding words.
The problem is, like most things, that it just was not true. Governments that are open by default do not silence independent officers of Parliament, but that is exactly what the Prime Minister did. The government is still doing it, because the information released does not confirm what the PBO told the committee, which is that Canadians pay more than they get back in rebates. That is the truth, and that is what the government needs to own up to.
For two years now, the Prime Minister has been misleading Canadians. He has been saying that the PBO found that most Canadians would get back more in carbon taxes than they paid. He said it again, by the way, to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities just a few days ago. It was quite a show. The mayors, the reeves and the councillors were at the FCM when the Prime Minister said that eight out of 10 Canadians would get back more than they paid. They started laughing at him. They booed him off the stage. They know, like Canadians know, it is just not true. He knows it—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The hon. deputy House leader knows full well that if he has questions and comments, he should wait until the end. I would ask other members to not engage him, and it is coming from both sides.
The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley has three minutes remaining.
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was booed off the stage.
Canadians know it is not true. All they have to do is look at their energy bills. They know that when we tax the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who ship the food and the grocers who sell the food, the food costs more. I like to call it trickle-down taxation.
This debate has been raging for two years. The Prime Minister gets up and says that Canadians get more rebates. The PBO says not so fast. When we consider the trickle-down economic effects, Canadians pay more. That is the truth, but do not take it from me. I know the members opposite will not take it from me. We do not even have to take it from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Members should take it from the Prime Minister. His own deputy minister of Environment did the analysis. He crunched the numbers. He sent the numbers to the PBO, and even under the threat of a gag order, the PBO spoke truth to power. He said in committee, “It confirms the report that we have published...That's why I'm comfortable with what we've already published.”
The Prime Minister, who says he is open by default, knows the truth, that Canadians pay more. He has hidden the facts, stonewalled the opposition and gaslit Canadians for too long. It is time to end the carbon tax cover-up, and that brings me to the point of this motion.
We are asking:
That an order of the House do issue to the government for a copy of the government's economic analysis on the impact of the federal fuel charge and the output-based pricing system referenced in the response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's information request...provided that it shall be laid upon the table, in both official languages and without redaction, no later than Monday, June 17, 2024.
We are asking the Prime Minister to live up to his own words and to be open by default. It is time to end the carbon tax cover-up and let the people know the truth.
Madam Speaker, this is the second day in a row that Conservatives are having a bad day. The reality is that yesterday we saw them fumble all over the place. We saw the Leader of the Opposition take all the questions away from his backbench so that he could pick a fight with the Deputy Prime Minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order, please. Again, I want to remind everyone in the House to please be respectful when somebody else has the floor.
The hon. deputy government House leader has the floor.
Madam Speaker, what we have learned, what the member should have learned, although he probably would have just received the information moments ago, is that if we actually look at the data, and the data is holistic and is all the data the PBO received, it tells us two very important things.
The first thing it tells us is that we have reduced emissions by 25 million tonnes per year, and our reduction of emissions is continuing to increase. The second thing it tells us, point blank and very clearly, if we read the data, is that eight out of 10 Canadians get back more than they pay. I have actually done the math on what I pay versus what I get, and I know I get more. I am wondering if the member has done the math on the rebate he receives.
Madam Speaker, I have to say that hearing that that member has done the math does not give me a lot of comfort.
The reality is, I wish he would give us the information he is talking about. The CBC's access to information request was denied. The Liberal government released pieces of information that supports its narrative. It did not release all of the information.
I maintain that the carbon tax cover-up continues. That report and that data, all of it needs to be tabled in this House now.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the motion we have been presented with today calls for an economic analysis of the carbon tax. I would submit, however, that what is needed is a far more macroeconomic analysis of the climate change question. This should include, for example, the costs of climate inaction, particularly the increase in insurance premiums and the health costs associated with pollution-related risks. This is nowhere to be found in the Conservatives' motion, however.
I would like to know whether this is because, according to the Conservatives, there is no cost associated with climate inaction.
[English]
Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the question from the member, what we are talking about here today is a very fundamental obligation of a government to the people. That obligation is to always tell them the truth, and this motion is trying to get at the truth.
It is time for the government to stop stonewalling Canadians, stop gaslighting Canadians and tell us what the data says. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it confirms his results. Where is that data? Bring it here. Table it right now.
Madam Speaker, once again, we have an “axe the facts” day.
I want to know some facts. I want to know why the leader of the Conservative Party is avoiding getting security clearance at a time of foreign interference. I want the facts on that, instead of another day where the Conservatives spin and axe those facts.
Madam Speaker, I am sure it says in the Standing Orders somewhere that the question should be about the motion. I will leave that question for another day.
Madam Speaker, does the member have any explanation for the reflexive secrecy? How on earth could it possibly come to the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to resort to ATIPing the government to get information from them? Secrecy by default is the Liberal government's M.O.
Does the member agree?
Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member's statement.
The reality is that the truth does not help the Liberals. The Liberal government has been lying to Canadians for two years. It is a tangled web that gets woven when it lies to Canadians for two years, and its own data comes out and shows that it has been lying—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is specifically saying that members of this House are lying. He cannot say that.
Madam Speaker, on this point of order, I listened very carefully to the member, and he did not accuse a member of Parliament of lying, which would be against the rules. He pointed out that the government has not told the truth, and the government has lied in its—
I think I have heard enough on the point of order. I would just remind members not to use the word “lying” in the House. It causes disorder. This has clearly caused disorder. I would ask the hon. member to rephrase his response.
The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.
Madam Speaker, that is all fair, but the truth is that the Liberal government has not been telling the truth to Canadians.
The Prime Minister has misled Canadians for years. The Liberals have data that shows he has been misleading Canadians. That is what this is about. The Liberals need to come clean. They need to give out all the data now so Canadians know the truth about the carbon tax.
Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Surrey Centre.
This morning, Environment and Climate Change Canada published data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on carbon pollution pricing relative to the national and provincial gross domestic product for the years 2022-30. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am happy to table this data in the House, along with a Statistics Canada study called “Aperçu de l’incidence des tendances météorologiques extrêmes au Canada sur la rentabilité de l’assurance des propriétaires et les consommateurs”; as well as another report, by the Canadian Climate Institute, called “Damage Control: Reducing the costs of climate impacts for Canada”. While I am at it, since Canada introduced its first-ever nature accountability act this morning, only the second country in the world to do so, I would also like to table “Toward a 2030 Biodiversity Strategy for Canada: halting and reversing nature loss”.
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I appreciate the member is tabling documents that we have not had a chance to see, but I will accept them. However, would the member table the documents on how much the toll fees for TMX are going to be and how much taxpayers are expected to cover off?
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay's request that the minister table a report is not really a point of order; it is more of a point of debate. The hon. minister knows that he can table reports at any time, so there is not an issue with his tabling reports.
The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the data published today does not represent a comprehensive economic overview of the impacts of carbon pricing. Instead, it is background data related to a specific request from the PBO, which was then used to develop some of its analysis.
The Government of Canada has a collaborative relationship with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It always has collaborated and always will collaborate fully with the PBO's requests, including by providing the PBO with all specific documents and information that respond to its requests.
[Translation]
It should be recognized that the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays an important role in our democratic institutions. He assists all parliamentarians, be it in their day-to-day work or in long-term research, in order to enhance the quality of parliamentary debate and to promote greater transparency and budgetary accountability.
[English]
Unlike the Conservatives, who have a history of muzzling scientists, on this side of the House we value science.
Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that the fuel charge and industrial carbon pricing system together will account for almost 80 million tonnes, Mt, of greenhouse gas pollution reduction in 2030, compared to what would have happened without the carbon pricing. That represents about one-third of the currently projected total emission that will result from various actions being undertaken pursuant to the 2030 emissions reduction plan. If members take the time to look at the data that is being tabled today, that was requested for us by the PBO, they will see that according to the PBO we know that greenhouse gas emissions have already gone down by 25 million tonnes per year because of carbon pricing.
A full economic assessment of carbon pricing cannot be done without considering the benefits of reducing pollution and the cost of not taking action, which is something, unfortunately, that the Conservative Party continues to ignore. Currently, climate change costs Canadian households an average of $720 a year and is set to rise to at least $2,000 a year by 2050. Canadians are already feeling the cost of climate change through losses to communities and livelihoods from wildfires, floods and hurricanes.
To estimate the economic benefit of emissions reduction, the Government of Canada uses a value known as the social cost of carbon. It quantifies the damages at $294 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in 2030. Canada's current social cost of carbon is the same value used by the United States government. Using that metric, the avoided cost for climate change in the year 2030 associated with the projected emissions reduction benefit of carbon pricing is about $23.1 billion per year. The social cost of carbon analysis is a core part of climate policy assessments used by many countries, as it reflects the reality of the growing impacts of climate change on current and future generations and is a standard methodology internationally recognized for estimating the benefits of reducing emissions.
Abandoning carbon pricing without replacing it with other actions would forgo those benefits, and replacing it with more costly policy measures would significantly and unnecessarily increase the cost to Canadians, which is another thing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has publicly recognized a number of times. In fact, a report from the Ecofiscal Commission concluded that carbon pricing would grow Canadians' incomes on average by $3,300 in 2030 relative to an alternative policy approach.
The increased costs of climate change are well documented.
[Translation]
For example, the Canadian Climate Institute document I referenced earlier tells us that by 2030, the annual costs of climate change impacts on Canada's GDP will be in the order of $35 billion. What is more, numerous studies have shown that the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of implementing measures to combat climate change.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his commentary and remarks, which I greatly appreciate.
A little later I will get back to the tabling of the documents, but basically, we feel that the documents released this morning are only partial. They are not complete, and they do not get to the bottom of the matter. That is why we often ask the minister to tell us precisely what the true effect is of the carbon tax in terms of directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is what we would like to know.
As for the real effect and the effectiveness of the carbon tax, I would like to table a document. Since the member tabled a number of documents, I am sure he will not mind if I table in the House a document entitled Climate Change Performance Index, or CCPI. As he knows very well, this document was presented at the last COP, which he attended. According to the CCPI, after nine years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62 out of 67 countries for greenhouse gas emissions.
The Liberal policies are not working.
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I have two things I would like to say.
First, we were asked to table the documents requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that is precisely what we did this morning. The data we are presenting to the House are those the Parliamentary Budget Officer had asked us for.
Second, while I know why my colleague likes to cite this CCPI report, the next time he talks about it I would like him to let the entire House know the reasons why Canada's performance is not improving. He knows full well what these reasons are, or at least I hope he does, because he often talks about this. I also hope he has read the document.
If Canada's performance is not improving, it is due to fossil fuel production. Consequently, we need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, and that is how our performance will improve.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I listened to it carefully.
I have two questions and observations for him.
First, we saw in the last budget that his government is continuing to invest in the oil industry. Does he really believe that these industries are in genuine need of help, when other people have much more need for government support than they do?
Second, he talked about documents this morning, but the reality is that the following was sent to the Parliamentary Budget Officer: “The data the Department is providing contains unpublished information. As such, I request you to ensure that this information is used for your office's internal purposes only and is not published or further distributed”.
On such a crucial issue, what information was not in the public's interest to know? Why wait until this morning to release the documents?
Madam Speaker, my colleague probably already knows this, but Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated government subsidies for fossil fuels. We did that last year. No other G20 country has done so. In addition, we did so two years ahead of the 2025 deadline. We even committed to doing more and eliminating indirect subsidies that are provided through Crown corporations like Export Development Canada, or EDC, and the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC.
As for the second part of her question, she correctly read an excerpt of the letter from the deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, requesting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer simply be careful. We needed to make sure that we did not violate any privacy laws by providing this information. We checked, and the information is now public.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the fundamental problem with the Liberals' carbon pricing schemes is that the government, under the present minister, gave $34 billion for the TMX pipeline. We now have record production taking place at Imperial. Cenovus is going to increase from 150,000 barrels a day. We are expecting a 500,000-barrels-a-day increase from the bitumen sands, which cause the highest greenhouse gas emissions on the planet.
How is the minister telling consumers that they should pay more when they go to the pumps when he is giving free money to big oil to continue the emissions that have risen in the oil sector year in, year out, and are now being subsidized by the government's pipeline?
Madam Speaker, I said it in French, but I will say it again in English and remind the member that Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies last year. The numbers he is referring to precede 2023. That is the first thing.
Second, we need to tackle climate change pollution coming from all of the sectors, including the oil and gas sector in Canada. That is why we have already put in place regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector by at least 45% by 2025, next year. We will ramp those up to at least 70% by 2030. That is also why we are putting in place a cap on oil and gas emissions.
Madam Speaker, Canadians are at the front lines of the climate crisis. Climate change manifests itself in our lives on a daily basis. It has already forced and will continue to force us to adapt and to change how we manage our businesses, organize our lives and interact with nature. With warmer temperatures comes more intense and frequent weather events everywhere on earth and here at home. At the global level, it has been estimated that, between 2000 and 2019, extreme events caused damages averaging around $143 billion, or around $16 million per hour.
Here at home, Canadians have first-hand experience with severe weather events such as hurricanes, storms, flooding, extreme heat and wildfires, which are now more common, more severe and more disastrous than ever. These kinds of weather events have major impacts on property and infrastructure, cause environmental damage and threaten lives and basic food security and water security. The impact of extreme weather events on Canadian communities is not limited to one given place. There are changes across our country and severe weather from coast to coast to coast.
When looking at the financial impacts of extreme weather, we see that six of the 10 costliest years on record in Canada were in the last decade. With 24 catastrophes, double the yearly average, the total insured losses for 2023 alone due to extreme weather were the fourth-highest in Canadian history at $3.1 billion. For example, 2023 was the most severe wildfire season Canada has seen to date, and for certain periods of time, smoke from Canadian fires blanketed much of the country and most of the northern and northeastern United States, exceeding air quality health standards. We all remember pictures of the New York City sky that was bright orange because of the smoke travelling from fires near our homes to south of the border.
A study has estimated the health costs of last year's wildfires for a single week in Ontario to be $1.28 billion due to changes in ambient air quality resulting in adverse health effects. In B.C., I am assuming it would be very similar after what we saw in the Okanagan and the interior. Sadly, 2024 could be a repeat of last summer. Current forecasts and conditions indicate that the coming wildfire season has the potential to be above average once again. Pre-existing dry conditions from the fall of 2023 and winter of 2024, combined with a high probability of warmer-than-normal conditions across the country this summer, contribute to predictions of above-average fire severity this summer, especially in the west.
Aside from the forecasts and the broader seasonal outlook, we can see that the 2024 wildfire season has already begun. As of May 27, there were 81 active fires across the country, with 14 of them out of control. Some people will say that the real season has not even started yet. In the east, the Atlantic is bracing for the upcoming hurricane season. Predictions for the upcoming hurricane season are for 17 to 25 major storms, category 3 or higher, eight to 13 of which could become hurricanes, and four to seven of them could become major hurricanes.
There is a high confidence in these forecasts generated for this year. Warmer weather in the Atlantic tends to increase the number of hurricanes in a particular season. Current water temperature in the Atlantic is very warm in the tropical zone, which will be a major contributor to this year's hurricane season.
As we all remember, hurricane Fiona in 2022 turned out to be one of the most significant and impactful tropical storms to affect Canada in many decades. It was particularly large, resulting in damage across all four Atlantic provinces and in parts of Quebec around the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Many Canadians are asking, “Is that what climate change looks like?”
It is not as simple as attributing a single weather event to human-caused climate change. The evidence is clear that Canada is experiencing more frequent and more intense storms. Climate change is leading to intense disasters not only here at home but also around the world. We know climate change brings the possibility of more frequent exceptional weather. Canadians are clearly seeing that stable climate they used to experience is over.
Strong weather prediction and environmental services, as well as systems that provide early warning of potential impacts, will continue to be critical going forward as Canada is to face more frequent unprecedented weather. Such measures are critical for robust emergency preparedness and responses to events like hurricane Fiona and Canada's historic 2023 wildfire season.
They also complement the significant steps the government has taken already to adapt to a future climate. For example, Canada's national adaptation strategy presents a comprehensive blueprint to strategically reduce the risks that come with climate change impacts. We need to adapt better, be prepared for severe weather events, transform our infrastructure and economy in a changing climate, and enable Canadians to prepare for future risks.
What does adapting to climate change involve at home? First, it is about informing people. Canada's world-class weather and environmental prediction services are becoming more important than ever in the face of unprecedented weather. They support decision-making at all levels of society, including for provincial emergency management and response efforts, and they increase climate resilience.
We have learned many hard lessons in recent years due to historic, costly weather events. In the wake of these experiences, we must show that, by working together, governments, organizations and citizens can build climate resilience. Together we must do more. We must do it faster. We must invest in transforming our infrastructure, our economy and our relationship with nature. We must do these things to fight climate change and to enhance our abilities to prepare and adapt to unprecedented weather. The Government of Canada will always be there to help Canadians in need.
Madam Speaker, I was just wondering, and maybe the member knows, maybe the government has shown him, how many emissions have been reduced by the carbon tax directly.
Madam Speaker, I believe that 25 million tonnes have been reduced per year, which has been the biggest reduction with a carbon tax since, I believe, the 1990s. I think it was the Oilers' last win, if I am right. However, this has been the biggest contribution to the reduction of carbon from our atmosphere that has ever happened in the history of this country. It is definitely more than what happened under the Harper government.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep harping on the fact that they abolished subsidies to the oil companies. However, former minister Catherine McKenna said that the carbon capture tax credit “should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that.... We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits”.
I will spare my colleagues the rest of the quote, but I would like someone to explain to me how the carbon capture tax credit is so different from the subsidies the Liberals are supposed to have abolished.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it is very clear how they are different. One is subsidizing the production of oil, which emits carbon, especially in the process of production and also when it is burnt.
The other is a subsidy in order to capture any carbon that is used in the process and store it so that it does not get into the atmosphere but goes back into the ground or some other place where it will not harm the atmosphere. I think it is a very important subsidy; it is counterintuitive to say that it is not important. It is equally important as doing a lot of the other ones to reduce the production of carbon. We also need to sequester carbon from production, away from the atmosphere.
Madam Speaker, we know that the government has a lousy record in terms of dealing with the climate emergency. The Liberals did buy a pipeline, if we want to talk about wasting taxpayer dollars, but they have tabled the report, which is what the whole opposition day motion by the Conservative Party is about.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague agrees that because the government has done what has been asked, if instead of spending another whole day axing the facts, on climate denialism, and spreading misinformation, we can get to talking about some important things, like the housing crisis in the country and like murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. With all the days the Conservatives spend axing the facts, could we actually talk about something else if we really are serious about helping Canadians?
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we would like to do on this side of the House, but I would like to remind the member that the motion is an opposition day motion, and it seems like the Conservatives' only priority is to fight on how we can produce more carbon and how we can release more carbon into the air.
We are fighting for Canadians and will continue to fight for Canadians. Fighting the important matters on the housing crisis, on inflation or on the cost of living is our priority. We will continue to do that, and I thank my hon. colleague for hoping for the same.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I asked a very direct question about the motion before us today. This is all about a cover-up. I asked the member—
Madam Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with my friend and associate, the member for Terrebonne.
This is the umpteenth version of an opposition motion on the carbon tax. When I read the motion, I was kind of confused about my Conservative colleagues' intentions. A careful read of the motion eventually reveals that its mover is seeking access to the government's economic analysis of carbon pricing, which was produced by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
In my opinion, the role of a public policy maker, of a lawmaker, is to collect as much information as possible for the purpose of making rational decisions. Despite my reservations, I do not see how the Bloc Québécois could vote against a motion that calls for information, that makes data in the government's possession more transparent, and that promotes clarity and access to information of interest to the public.
I have reservations because I feel that we can distinguish between two types of politicians in the House. There are politicians who are rational and there are politicians who are irrational. That is what I would like to talk to my colleagues about today. In my opinion, an irrational politician is one who takes positions and formulates their remarks not on the basis of facts, truth or science, but often on the basis of simplistic propositions, simplistic observations to complex problems. This is eerily similar to populism and to some of the Conservatives ways of doing things.
To put a face to my remarks, I would like to return to the member for Carleton. I am not the teasing type, like my friend from Timmins—James Bay. I would not take the liberty to say that the member for Carleton spent his life working at Dairy Queen. I find that a bit vulgar, so I will not go there. What I do know, though, is that the member for Carleton has been a member for 20 years. I think it will be 20 years this year. My colleague, the transport minister, is wont to say that we are here for our pensions. I feel that the member for Carleton will have a really nice pension, since he has been here for 20 years. We are talking about a seasoned parliamentarian here.
Although he is a seasoned parliamentarian, I feel that he does not understand how a bill is supposed to work. We saw him yesterday during question period reacting strongly to the Bloc Québécois's questions on the capital gains bill. I saw the opposition leader react strongly while making some disjointed proposals. One can be in favour of a bill, one can want to send it to committee for improvements and at the same time criticize the details and implications of that bill. That is what my Bloc Québécois colleague did yesterday during question period. Surprisingly, the leader of the official opposition does not seem to get this.
During question period yesterday, he reiterated over and over again that if this bill moves forward, the Bloc Québécois will support it. He said that Quebec physicians will flee. I do not know where they will flee to. I do not know if Quebec doctors will go to Ontario. During his remarks in English, he said the opposite. He said that Ontario's doctors would flee. Will Ontario's doctors flee to Quebec? He did not seem to understand that the capital gains thing would apply to everyone. That is the perverse logic of the member for Carleton, who often indulges in fallacious reasoning.
Earlier, in his presentation on opposition day, he said that Quebec wanted to invest $11 billion in a tramway. He said that $11 billion for a tramway represents $28,000 for each and every family. He said he preferred to give $28,000 to every family rather than invest in a tramway. Duller minds might conclude that if they are against the tramway and they live in Quebec City, they will receive $28,000. It is easy to see that this has a perverse effect. The Leader of the Official Opposition does this all the time, associating opposition during question period with decisions made by the government. It is as if, speaking of the $83 billion the government will be investing in the oil industry between now and 2035, I made a flawed calculation like the leader of the official opposition did and asked Canadians whether they preferred to receive that much money rather than invest $83 billion in the oil industry.
I am not in favour of fossil fuels, but I am not stupid enough to get caught up in this type of perverse rhetoric. It makes me think of my philosophy courses in CEGEP. In Philosophy 101, students learn logic. I get the feeling that the member for Carleton did not take that course, and I will explain why. In CEGEP, people learn what a logical fallacy is. I will give an example. The Minister of Transportation has a white beard, Santa Claus has a white beard, therefore the Minister of Transportation is Santa Claus. That is a fallacy, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition constantly resorts to. Why not give him a dose of his own medicine?
Let us look at some of the political events where we could associate untruths with the leader of the official opposition. To keep things simple and to ensure my Conservative friends can understand, we could quickly refer to a saying in Quebec that goes, “you are what you eat”. The member for Carleton eats apples, therefore the member for Carleton is an apple. That is the type of logic the Leader of the Opposition uses. I will give members another example. In Quebec, woke people are against Bill 21. The leader of the official opposition is against Bill 21, therefore the leader of the official opposition is woke. We could do the same thing with the statement he made about the mayor of Montreal. He said that the mayor of Montreal had not built enough housing units and that she was incompetent. I checked. During this period, she built nearly 12,000 housing units in Montreal. The leader of the official opposition, when he was in government, built six housing units. Therefore, if the mayor of Montreal is incompetent because of the number of housing units she built, and if the member for Carleton built six housing units, does that mean that he is incompetent? That is the same simplistic logic.
Then there is the leader of the official opposition's position in light of statements from the member for Peace River—Westlock. The MP for Peace River—Westlock, a proponent of social conservatism within the Conservative Party, was on a podcast where he let people know the true nature of Bernadette. That is an expression we use back home about someone's political views on a woman's right to control her own body. Of all the things the member for Peace River—Westlock said, what interested me most was what he said about cannabis. He said he was against legalizing cannabis. I invite members to follow my reasoning, because it will take us to a very interesting place. In a written statement sent to the Journal de Montréal, the leader of the official opposition said, “To be clear, there will also be no change to the legal status of marijuana under a future Conservative government.” This means that marijuana will be legal under a Conservative government. Hear me out. Marijuana is a drug, so the leader of the official opposition is in favour of decriminalizing drugs. The leader of the official opposition supports wacko and extremist government policies. We are learning something today. It is rather surprising.
The same could be said of Ukraine. We know that the entire Conservative caucus voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. If the Conservative caucus opposes free trade with Ukraine, then it must be pro-Russian. That means the Conservative caucus is pro-Russian. Obviously, the Conservative caucus is pro-Russian and it supports the legalization of drugs. The scales are starting to tip. Honestly, I find it hard to see conservatism in the leader of the official opposition. Things go even further than that. Let me give an example of this lack of even basic logic and the outrageous use of fallacious reasoning, like the leader of the official opposition is doing. Some time ago—
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would ask you, as the Chair, if you could direct the member to address the motion before the House.
[Translation]
I want to remind members that, when they are giving their speeches, they have quite a bit of latitude, but they must speak to the motion. I am sure the hon. member will circle back to the motion before the House.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
Madam Speaker, let us be patient. I am getting there.
Getting back to carbon pricing, Derek Evans, the former CEO of MEG Energy, is now the executive chair of Pathways Alliance, the largest representative of the oil sands industry. What did Mr. Evans say? He said that the advice he would give to the opposition leader is that the carbon policy will be absolutely essential for maintaining our position on the world stage.
We cannot make this stuff up. The representative of the oil industry is giving lessons to the leader of the official opposition on climate change. He tells him that if we want to reduce our carbon footprint, then pricing is essential. Canada will not be competitive if we do not move forward with carbon pricing in the global economy. The oil industry's representative is giving lessons to the leader of the official opposition. I am not making this up.
My mischievous colleague from Rivière-du-Nord asked the leader of the official opposition a question about Derek Evans. I want to read the response of the leader of the official opposition. He said, “he sounds like another useless lobbyist saying stupid things.”
That is what the leader of the official opposition said about Derek Evans, the same person his party invited to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
I can elaborate on this during questions and comments.
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague.
Today's discussion is very strange. When it comes to the climate crisis, the Conservatives are a bunch of conspiracy theorists. That being said, I am concerned about the Liberal Party's position. The government invested a lot of money in the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This will result in a massive increase in greenhouse gases.
Why is the government supporting the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline and promoting the tar sands during a climate crisis?
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. He is absolutely right.
When it comes to oil and gas, I find the Liberals are just Conservatives with a complex. They are trying to hide things. Earlier, the Minister of Environment was saying that we were the first country to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels. The devil is in the details. What the government wanted to do was eliminate inefficient funding for fossil fuels. When you ask the government what inefficient support for fossil fuels is, they do not know.
We have a long way to go. My colleague is absolutely right.
[English]
Madam Speaker, on the motion itself, literally minutes, maybe even seconds, before the opposition leader moved the motion to compel the production of documents, the government reluctantly, at the very last second, dropped an 80-page report. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has had to resort to the broken and completely chaotic ATIP system to try to get basic information from the government to do his job.
Does the member support the government's penchant for secrecy? Does he not support parliamentarians using the tools available to them to compel honesty from a government that promised to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, that is precisely it.
I want members of Parliament to have access to as much information as possible before making decisions. The gist of my speech earlier was that this information has to be used in a rational manner, which the Conservative Party is not doing right now.
When a leader says that people are requesting medical assistance in dying because they have no food to eat, that is not rational. When a leader says that we can catch lightning to light up a room, that is not rational. When an opposition leader says that you can weld two pieces of metal together with your hands, that is not rational.
What I have this to say to my Conservative colleagues is that, yes, we need information, but we need to interpret it rationally.
Madam Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague asked us to give him an opportunity to address the Leader of the Opposition's comments on the Liberal-paid lobbyist who was invited to a Conservative event. I would like to hear more about that.
I will give the hon. member the opportunity to ask her question, but I would like to remind everyone that questions and debates should really be pertinent to the motion itself. I am certain that the hon. member for Jonquière will take that into consideration in his answer.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
Madam Speaker, at the close of my remarks I was simply pointing out that the Conservatives' motivations when it comes to carbon pricing are to support the oil and gas industry. It was surprising, therefore, to see the leader of the official opposition rise and say that the chief representative of the oil and gas industry is, in fact, a useless lobbyist who says stupid things. I have to wonder whether the Conservative Party is changing its tune.
Have its members had an epiphany? Will they suddenly believe in climate warming and realize that the oil and gas sector is responsible for much of it? That is how I wanted to close my remarks.
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for having gone before me and raised so many examples of the sophistry exhibited recently by the Conservative Party. It was magnificent. I would just point out that he spoke about the motion more than did the member for Carleton, who is after all the motion's sponsor.
The motion seeks to make public certain documents. Something rather comical took place at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts this week. The Conservative Party asked the deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to provide the documents that Environment Canada had provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Let us just say that there was a kerfuffle between the Privy Council representative, who was in attendance, and the Environment Canada representatives who had said at the start that these were confidential Cabinet documents that could not be made public. Then they walked this back, because these documents had not been sent to cabinet and were therefore not confidential cabinet documents. This excuse did not hold water. Then they hemmed and hawed, claiming that the figures had not been vetted. It was all very wishy-washy. Clearly, they had been instructed not to release these figures, which is a problem in itself. We are in agreement on that.
Something else I found funny was that right before the member for Carleton began to speak, the government decided to release these figures, at the request of journalists, so that they could be accessed. It is nice to finally be able to speak today about what is contained in these figures. In all likelihood, the Conservatives were expecting to find an economic disaster and to be able to say that the carbon tax would create an economic disaster and that Canada's economy would crumble, just like the economy of all the countries that have put a price on pollution. Quebec's economy has completely crumbled, right?
No, on the contrary, putting a price on pollution is a useful tool for those who believe in climate change. The question we must ask is, does the Conservative Party believe in climate change? That is another story.
According to the numbers released, by 2030, greenhouse gas emissions should be down by 80 million tonnes. This means that we will be able to prevent emitting 11% of the greenhouse gases that Canada is expected to emit by 2030. The trade-off is that GDP is expected to fall by about $20 billion. However, this $20-billion drop in GDP does not include the positive side of a carbon tax, in other words, the new jobs created, the businesses encouraged to develop green technologies and the clean economic growth that would occur. That is the goal of transforming an economy into a green economy. That is what these numbers show.
The reason the member for Carleton did not refer to the numbers he so desperately wanted to see is that they do not substantiate what the Conservative Party has been trying to show for ages now, which is that implementing the carbon tax will lead to some sort of terrible disaster. Quite the opposite is true.
I will give another little lesson in economics, and I will do so as long as the Conservatives continue to dilly-dally and spread disinformation in the House. The economic and societal costs of climate change can easily be quantified.
Let us start with the cost of climate change on the health of Quebeckers and Canadians. Obviously, we are seeing more and more heat waves, which will impact the mortality rate. That is a cost. Climate change will also impact allergies because of a major increase in pollen. We are seeing it. The season is longer and there is more pollen. That is going to bother people. That is a cost because it will be harder for people to go to work and they will not feel like working as much. There will be an economic cost to this drop in productivity over the long spring and summer season. These are direct costs of climate change. One last cost is the cost of zoonotic diseases, which are diseases that are transmitted through a vector, such as ticks. Lyme disease is a good example, as is the West Nile virus.
As a result of climate change, species like the ticks that transmit Lyme disease and the mosquitoes that transmit the West Nile Virus are increasingly migrating north to Canada, so there are going to be a lot more cases of zoonotic diseases. If Lyme disease is not treated quickly, it can produce a wide range of symptoms and even lead to death. These are the impacts of climate change.
Let us talk about another sector: infrastructure. Do I need to remind the House of Commons once again that forest fires and floods will have a huge impact on society and the economy? I could also talk about permafrost. We know that housing is a huge problem for indigenous people. Climate change is making it even worse, because the ground is changing and thawing, degrading the structural integrity of homes. This means more repairs, which means higher costs. The federal government is totally incapable of providing housing on reserves. We know this because the Auditor General identified it as a major problem. Climate change has many consequences. I will give a final example. Obviously, I could spend my entire 10 minutes listing examples. Let us talk about erosion. Rising water levels are causing more and more shoreline erosion. There are companies in the Magdalen Islands that will literally fall into the water unless something is done. They need to be moved. Sometimes, an entire factory needs to be moved. That costs money.
If everyone could accept the premise that climate change exists, that would be a good start. We need to do something, to put a price on pollution in order to counter climate change. That is something the Conservatives were in agreement with barely two and a half years ago, during the 2021 campaign. Now, suddenly, they no longer agree. It is a shift that may have something to do with the populism of the current leader. They could at least agree that we need to do something using existing economic tools. There are tools that already exist, such as the carbon tax and Quebec's emissions cap-and-trade system.
Let us take it one step at a time. First, can we all agree that we need to do something using existing economic tools? Then there are the incentives and disincentives that can be created. The carbon tax is a disincentive, meaning it taxes polluters. The cap-and-trade system is an incentive, where emissions are exchanged between different stakeholders, particularly those with different types of economies. Let me take two minutes to explain how the cap-and-trade system between Quebec and California works. It works because it is easier for California to reduce GHG emissions. Industries in California have lower abatement costs. That is an economics term. It means that, for the same amount of money, it costs less to reduce GHGs in California than in Quebec.
I am disappointed that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent cannot hear my speech today. I hope he is listening. It is not true that the cap-and-trade system is causing a flight of capital. All it means is that, if we believe in the need to reduce GHGs, it cost less to do so by investing that money in reducing GHGs in California than it would to reduce GHGs in Quebec. It is a quid pro quo. That is a basic economic principle. The economic tools are working. Quebec's GHG emission cap-and-trade system is working. GHG emissions are lower than expected in Quebec. Moreover, Quebec's economy has obviously not collapsed. It is working.
By moving this motion, the Conservatives were likely trying to spread disinformation again. That is a real problem. It prevents us from having a reasonable debate on reasonable issues like the carbon tax, which is an idea that should normally work. The Liberal Party has unfortunately mismanaged the issue, but the Conservatives are spreading outright disinformation, which is bad for the public. Instead of focusing on the tramway in Quebec City, why does the Leader of the Opposition not talk a bit more about what the carbon tax really is? Why does he not simply state the facts, the truth, about what the carbon tax actually does for people?
As a final point, I have a message for the public servants who were so reluctant to share these figures with the public. I believe the public servants when they say that they are working hard, that they want to do a good job when they go to work. However, they are caught between the Liberal Party, which does not necessarily believe in transparency, and the Conservative Party, which is spreading disinformation. Public servants need to remember that they do not work for the Liberal Party. They work for the public. Public servants work for Quebeckers and Canadians. It is important that they grasp the important principle of transparency in a democracy and live according to that principle.
Public servants who live in Quebec are lucky, because they have a third option, the responsible option. They can vote for the Bloc Québécois in the next election.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the member spoke about misinformation that Conservatives were spreading and seemed to question why, but the answer to that question is quite obvious. The Leader of the Opposition likes to spread misinformation because he sees political opportunity from it, but what he cannot debate is the data that was released today. The data that was released today categorically shows that the price on pollution, the carbon tax, is now lowering emissions by 25 million tonnes per year and that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off as a result of the rebate that they receive as opposed to what they pay.
Would the member agree with that factual information?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is nice to get a question and an answer at the same time.
I am just going to qualify what my colleague said. Those figures are one of the reasons provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada. These figures should be taken with a grain of salt. Saying that 25 million tonnes of greenhouse gases will be prevented is just a projection. Projections are not necessarily facts. This kind of information needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
This applies to both sides of the House. On the one hand, the Conservatives should accept that the carbon tax has a cost associated with it, but that the benefits ultimately outweigh that cost. A simple cost-benefit analysis would demonstrate that.
On the other hand, the Liberal Party should not want to hide these numbers because it is afraid of how they might be interpreted, nor should it be claiming victory now, when only a few hours ago it did not want this information to be public.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the member spoke a bit about contrasting the government's carbon tax with the cap-and-trade system and which is a more efficient policy. On this side of the House, Conservatives believe in technology and working with industry and innovators to help ensure that green technology and green alternatives can be improved to a point where they are more accessible, affordable and attainable for people across the country, including in northern and rural remote areas.
Would the member not agree that focusing on technology would be a more efficient way to find green alternatives than the current government's carbon tax approach that is just making everything more expensive and punishing people for heating their homes, putting gas in their tanks or just trying to feed their families?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, technology and green technologies are obviously the way of the future. That said, how are these technologies going to be funded? The whole purpose of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is to collect money to be able to fund these future technologies.
It is amazing to me that the Conservative Party talks about new technologies but does not realize that money is not going to fall from the sky to pay for them.
How do the Conservatives plan to do that, especially if they vote against progressive principles such as raising the capital gains tax? Where are they going to find that money?
[English]
Madam Speaker, the government gave $34 billion to the TMX pipeline, but what it does not talk about is that it is so over-budget that no oil company can use it because of the toll charges that have to be charged per barrel of oil. The Canada Energy Regulator had capped the toll charges at 22¢ on every dollar so that 78¢ was going to be paid by taxpayers. Now Liberals are saying they are going to increase it to just under 50¢ per dollar.
In what credible world is it that the taxpayers of Canada will have to pay at least 50¢ on every dollar to ship raw bitumen to the coast on behalf of companies that are making record profits? This is the biggest scam and subsidy that I have ever heard of in promoting the burning of our planet, and yet the Minister of Environment is going along with it. I wonder what the member thinks of this.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it gives me the opportunity to demonstrate how the Liberal government is like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On the one hand, it is acting in good faith, it is making amazing plans for the transition and it wants to tax carbon, but on the other hand, it is still giving tens of billions of dollars to the most polluting industry in Canada. That is a serious problem.
Is this greenwashing? We are not sure.
[English]
Privilege
Record of the Proceedings of the House
[Privilege]
Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre regarding the recent comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon West.
I understand you are currently considering this. I would like to urge you to give this question strong consideration. While the member for Saskatoon West has appropriately apologized for his original statement, I believe the member for Winnipeg Centre has raised an important, unresolved issue with respect to how the record is modified in this place.
Specifically, when speaking of an indigenous person, the record was changed from “because of his racial background” to “regardless of his racial background.” This fundamentally alters the meaning of what was said. As the Speaker recently stated, “it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in this House.”
As the member for Winnipeg Centre has noted already, from time to time members seek unanimous consent of the House to correct the record. This was not the case here. It would seem to me that this would be an appropriate option that would actually follow the practices of the House. For this reason, I hope you give this question of privilege appropriate consideration.
I thank the hon. member for the additional information, and it certainly will be taken into consideration as we deliberate on this matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member across the way for his intervention, as I have given. This is a very significant, serious matter in the House. The member for Saskatoon West has made similar comments in the past. However, I will not go into those comments.
It is important we have trust in the blues and have trust in Hansard, and that members cannot just alter the record to avoid accountability and responsibility, particularly when making blatantly racist comments in the House.
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing
[Business of Supply]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Madam Speaker, I am always proud to rise in this House and proud as well to share my time with the member for Vancouver East.
There are moments when I have a hard time justifying what people watch on television, when it comes to the House of Commons. Many of them think that our democracy is deteriorating into this ridiculous Punch and Judy show between the Liberals and Conservatives of refusing to deal with the issues at hand. Today is a really strong example of this, where the Conservatives have lit their hair on fire over an internal debate between the Parliamentary Budget Officer's numbers and the government's numbers over a report that we have access to.
There are so many things we could be taking the time to debate, like, for example, the issue of foreign interference, which everyone is concerned with, but we know that the Conservatives will not go to the foreign interference file because the leader, who lives in Stornoway, will not or cannot get security clearance. I have never imagined a situation where a would-be prime minister is unable or unwilling to actually know if there are threats to this country, because ignorance is not bliss in politics; it is dereliction of duty.
We could be talking about what is happening on the global stage with the frightening rise of the right in Europe and the threat that it poses to the defence of Ukraine as we see Putin's war machine moving continually against the Ukrainian people, but we do not see the Conservatives wanting to stand up on that, and they have voted against Ukraine a number of times.
We could talk about the war crimes findings of the United Nations this week, which I find very disturbing. We find the UN has reported that Hamas's crimes against civilians, sexual violence and kidnapping were extremely horrific on October 7, and of course we know that Hamas is a terrorist organization that has been widely condemned, and justly so. However, it is the findings on Israel in the UN reports that say that “The frequency, prevalence and severity of sexual and gender-based [violence]... against Palestinians” have become part of the normal “operating procedures” of the Israeli Security Forces. It is a frightening finding by the United Nations about a close ally of ours, that it is using widespread sexual violence against civilians.
The other finding that the UN raised serious concerns about is starvation as a method of warfare. The reality is, of course, that starvation is not a method of warfare. It is not a military aim; it is an attempt to destroy a people. When one cuts off food to children and families, they are trying to destroy a people, and that meets the test of genocide, yet the Conservatives do not want to talk about that.
Canada once had a bright light on the international stage on social justice. We are tiptoeing around the horrific violence being perpetrated against defenceless people in Palestine. The Conservatives will not speak about that, so they would rather we spend our time on this internal bickering about some numbers. The rest of the world is looking at Canada and saying, “Where are they? Where is their voice? Why are they not standing strong for the International Criminal Court and for justice, like so many of our allies, like our friends in Ireland who are not afraid to speak up?”
We have come to one more day of a long-going battle between the climate-denying Conservatives, who believe that the burning of the planet by big oil should be made free, and the Liberals, who have continually failed to explain a credible plan for dealing with rising carbon emissions. The fact is that carbon emissions from the oil and gas sector have risen every single year. They continue to rise. They rise under the current government dramatically.
There is government talk about how carbon pricing, when I fill up at the gas station or when I travel, is having this great benefit. Canadians are paying their share, and Canadians are willing to do their share to deal with the climate crisis, but big oil has no intention. Then, we have industrial carbon pricing that allows planet burners, like Suncor, to pay one-fourteenth in comparison to what an average person would pay.
Canadians know that is not right. The real issue on carbon pricing with the government is that the Prime Minister went to COP26 and announced an emissions cap that he had not consulted with anybody about and he was going to put an emissions cap on big oil, but at the same time he put aside $34 billion to build a pipeline for which there was no business case.
Compare that to the government's work on clean energy. How long has it been since the Deputy Prime Minister announced investment tax credits to kick-start our clean energy economy? We are still waiting. We are still waiting for justice in indigenous communities for housing. We get those promises. In my region, the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Weeneebayko Area Health Authority saying the government supports getting rid of what is really an apartheid-era hospital, yet none of that has flowed. However, when it came to giving money to big oil, the taps turned on: $34 billion.
What does that mean in terms of the credibility of carbon pricing? Right now, in the oil patch, they are talking about a year of record production. Imperial Oil is breaking production records. Why? It is thanks to TMX. Cenovus is going to increase from 800,000 barrels a day to 950,000 barrels a day. Heavy bitumen is going to increase 500,000 barrels a day, thanks to the free gift of taxpayers' money to an industry that has not been serious at any point about reducing emissions. We are going to have an increase of 500,000 barrels a day of raw bitumen, which has the highest greenhouse gas emissions of any fuel on the planet out of the oil and gas sector.
Taxpayers are expected to pay for that, but they are not just paying for that. The Trans Mountain pipeline is such a boondoggle that even super-rich companies like Suncor and Imperial and Cenovus could not run the bitumen through it, because it would be too expensive to pay for the toll fees. The toll fees are how we get the money back for the investment in the pipeline. As it stands now, 78¢ on every dollar is going to be paid by the Canadian people as a subsidy to companies that made $68 billion in profit. The government is now saying that it is going to make it a little fairer. It wants the taxpayer to pay maybe 55¢ or 60¢ on every dollar. That is Liberal mathematics.
When the Liberals come out and say that the Prime Minister has a Haida tattoo and that the Prime Minister has said that Canada is back on the international stage, what they should have been saying all along is that they were adamant that they were going to massively increase what is the dirtiest oil on the planet. That is not a personal statement. That is a fact. Bitumen has the highest GHG emissions in the world.
There is a reason the Liberals had to scramble to spend that money. Certainly we know from the IPCC and the warnings by António Guterres that we are beyond the red line now in terms of a climate catastrophe unfolding, and the United Nations has actually called out world leaders for “lying” about their promises on the international stage while massively increasing fossil fuel production at a time when the planet is on fire. That is what the UN said, but then the International Energy Agency, hardly a hangout for left-wing thought, has been warning consistently against putting more infrastructure into oil and gas because it will result in stranded assets. In fact, the IEA says we are seeing a massive glut that is going to appear in the next three years that will completely undermine the economics of oil and gas production. Since bitumen is the highest cost going, the government had to scramble with our money to expand that, so we could be locked in for decades to come.
Under Canada's scenario on oil production, Liberals expect that we will still be burning the same amount of bitumen in 2050 as we are today. They were never serious about dealing with the climate crisis. They were never serious about lowering emissions. They expect the ordinary taxpayers, who are more than willing to do their part to help the planet, to do that, and it is all on their shoulders, while the government is giving gifts to companies that made billions. This is what the government will be remembered for on the climate crisis.
Madam Speaker, the OECD, which is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has projected that Canada will be among the worst of 40 advanced nations for the next three decades, that we are just going in a totally wrong direction.
There has been a war on Canadian industry, on the resource sector, which we hear time and again from the previous speaker. The NDP members are just supporting and are joined hand in hand and joined at the hip with the Liberals.
Does the member recognize that they have abandoned working-class Canadians?
Madam Speaker, that was pretty hilarious. I feel like I am being stoned to death with popcorn, with the insincerity coming from my colleagues. Let us talk about the abandonment of working-class people, when the member for Kelowna—Lake Country was bragging about making carbon and pollution free while her city was on fire during a climate crisis.
Let us talk about how the member who lives in Stornoway, who has never actually had a job that we have been able to figure out, was flying up to Yukon to say that they are going to make pollution burning free while people were fleeing from their homes.
As for the working class, the working class has a right to sustainable living, sustainable jobs and a sustainable future for their children. The Conservatives would burn that in a second if they could, if it meant giving Suncor some more money.
Madam Speaker, the member started his speech today by talking about other things that we could have been talking about, other things that Conservatives could have brought forward in their opposition day motion. He acknowledged, and I think we all know, that this is just a reoccurring theme. Conservatives always want to talk about the same thing, about the price on pollution, and they want to continue to instill distrust in Canadians, when more than eight out of 10 get back more than they put in.
The reality is that we are seeing this time and time again with Conservatives. They are basing their information on misinformation to try to mislead Canadians. For two months, they sat silent on the capital gains tax, to only suddenly, two days ago, push the rage farm button to activate all the trolls to do all of their dirty work for them.
What does the member think about the position that the Leader of the Opposition has taken?
Madam Speaker, I feel like I am being asked to make commentary on something that was going on inside the member's head. I do not know really what the question was, but then I never quite do.
Let us talk about getting out more than what one puts in. Let us talk about Pathways Alliance and what they get out of Canada with putting less in. That is the question, I think, we should be asking the Liberals. Why do they continue to give Pathways Alliance such a free pass, when it is making $68 billion in profits and it has made it clear that it has no intention of lessening its emissions unless we pay for it? It wants us to pay 70% of the costs of this carbon capture scheme, which even it admits does not work. That is it. We put in a lot more and we get out a lot less from those guys.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, we saw in the motion that the Liberals seemed to be trying to prevent the release of the report. Earlier, we heard the Minister of Environment and Climate Change say that he had stopped subsidizing oil when in fact he continues to subsidize the oil companies in all manner of ways, including the pipeline and so-called carbon capture.
What does my colleague make of this doublespeak?
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal government has no credibility when it comes to subsidies for the oil companies. Let us not forget that the public investment in developing the Trans Mountain pipeline was enormous. There were a lot of subsidies for helping with the expansion and the development of the oil companies, which led to an increase in GHG emissions in Alberta, without any plan to lower them.
The question is: what about the GHG target? Mr. Trudeau made a promise, but where is the plan?
[English]
We cannot use other members' names, as the hon. member knows.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House to enter into this debate. However, I must say that the debate before us is really a colossal waste of the House of Commons resources and the valuable time that we have in this chamber to debate urgent issues and situations.
Why do I say that? The motion the Conservatives tabled is effectively calling for the government to table a set of data by June 17, 2024. What we do know is that the government did table a set of data. In fact, the Liberals tabled it today, albeit they should have made the information available right from the outset and should have been transparent with it. Notwithstanding that, that information is now before us. It begs the question why we are here debating a motion that is, frankly, not relevant anymore. It has already been addressed.
In the meantime, what is happening in our communities? We have a situation in our communities, which is a housing crisis from coast to coast to coast. In fact, just today, I tabled a private member's bill to call on the government to use a human rights-based lens in addressing the housing crisis, something that the Liberals say they will honour under the National Housing Strategy Act. However, in reality, we know that is not being done. In fact, there are encampments all across the country where people cannot access the housing they need, adequate housing that they need.
My private member's bill calls for the government to incorporate into the National Housing Strategy Act provisions that would disallow decampment on federal lands and to work collaboratively with other orders of government, other levels of government, to properly address the housing crisis. That is perhaps what we should be doing: focusing on how we can truly address the housing crisis, instead of having the Conservatives putting forward motions that are moot and have been made irrelevant already.
I would also say that we have a situation with the immigration system, where there are a lot of issues. The government decided that it would bring in a cap on international students very suddenly, impacting international students who are now caught out in a very bad way. They would not be able to renew their work permit or their study permit because of the cap. Some of them are being exploited and taken advantage of.
I just got an email from someone who told me that they were advised to go and marry someone, engage in marriage fraud, in order to find a path to stay here in Canada. That is not the path forward. We know that international students are struggling. They contribute, by the way, to Canada's economy, to our economic, social, cultural and educational communities. They should be valued instead of being blamed for the housing crisis that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have caused.
It was the Conservatives who cancelled Canada's national co-op housing program in 1992. It was the Conservative leader who sat at the table and saw the Harper government lose 800,000 units of affordable housing for Canadians. Then it was the Liberals, in 1993, following the Conservatives, who cancelled the national affordable housing program. They also added to the loss of affordable housing in our communities.
Therefore, instead of talking about a motion that is no longer relevant, we should be talking about how we are going to earnestly address the housing crisis, how we are going to ensure that those who are unhoused can live in dignity and how we can ensure that Canada will not only build more housing faster, but also build the kind of housing that Canadians can afford and can live in with dignity. We should be talking about how we should not allow decampment to take place, to further displace people who are unhoused in our communities, to marginalize them and to further put them at greater risks.
If we want to, and we should, talk about the climate crisis, we should not talk about how we can enable the climate crisis to further escalate. I do not know if the Conservatives are blind to the fact that we have a climate crisis. They cannot continue to stick their heads in the sand and to deny this reality. In my community, in British Columbia, we had a weather-related crisis that happened in the heat wave that killed over 600 people. We had a fire that burned down an entire town, a flood that followed and a mudslide that continued to further escalate the climate crisis. We cannot pretend that this is not happening and that somehow the carbon tax is to blame.
Let us just be clear about who is to blame and what action we need to take. Big oil needs to take responsibility, and those companies need to be held to account. The government, the Liberals, refuse to take the action that is necessary to deal with the climate crisis. The Liberals refuse to ensure that big oil pays its fair share. The Liberals refuse to stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry. Why are they doing that when the oil and gas industry is actually making record profit. It is to the detriment of everyday Canadians, to our collective detriment.
When the earth is burning, and it literally is with the wildfires and the forest fires that are taking place, we cannot just sit in the House and blame the carbon tax. What planet are we from? If we continue to go down this track, we are not going to address the climate crisis, which is desperately in need of action. We should be saying to Suncor that we are sorry, but it has made over $2.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2023, and enough is enough; we are going to make sure that we stop the subsidies for the oil and gas industry and that the industry is made to do its part to address the climate crisis.
Madam Speaker, let me say this. We also have a responsibility in the international community to address the climate crisis because there are more people being displaced as a result of weather-related situations. Therefore, we have a collective responsibility to do what is right. There are many issues we need to debate, and debate seriously, but not a motion to which the very data that the Conservatives want has already been tabled. With that, I welcome questions.
Madam Speaker, I know that housing is important to the member, and she spoke about it during her intervention. At the housing committee, just a few hours ago, we heard that higher capital gains taxes will have a negative effect on home building. This was a statement made by the chief economist of Canada's largest construction association.
Why would the member, along with the rest of her NDP colleagues, continue to prop up the Liberal government and vote, just yesterday, for tax increases that would hurt home building in Canada during a crisis of home affordability?
Madam Speaker, let us be very clear about the housing crisis and what has caused it. Successive Liberal governments and Conservative governments have helped to create the housing crisis we are in by allowing for the financialization of housing and for big developers to use renovictions to displace people so that they lose their homes.
Under the Conservatives, we already know that Canada has lost more than 800,000 units of housing. The Conservative leader called community housing “Soviet-style” housing. That is shameful.
The government could address the housing crisis by building housing that Canadians need and can afford.
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that today's motion is nonsensical. It is just a regurgitation of the motions we have seen over the last number of months when we could be and should be debating more important issues, like housing and the environment.
The Leader of the Opposition was in Hamilton recently as part of his “make Canada great again tour”. He made no reference to, or had no ideas about, how to get out of the housing crisis. He provided no plan as it relates to combatting climate change.
I wonder if the member can speak to why it is so important that we provide options and alternatives for Canadians as it relates to those two very important issues.
Madam Speaker, the truth is that Conservatives are only focused on slogans. They somehow think that the slogan “axe the tax” will actually fix the housing crisis. It will not.
What we need, to address the housing crisis, is for Canada to be, at the very minimum, on par with the G7 countries with respect to our community housing stock. Right now, at 3.5%, it is less than half of where they are. We will not address the housing crisis if we continue to go down this track. Significant investments need to be made. The kind of housing that needs to be built is the kind that Canadians can afford. That is at the core of the issue.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who is quite worked up today, what she thinks about the motion before us.
It is basically a request for information, so I find it rather odd that we are spending a full day debating it. What does my colleague think?
[English]
Madam Speaker, today's debate on this motion is an entire waste of time for members of Parliament and a waste of the resources required to keep the House running, because the information the Conservatives say that they want has already been tabled. It makes the entire motion completely irrelevant to this debate today.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East, who is a tremendous advocate. I would have to say that I agree with her that this is a totally irrelevant motion because the information has already been tabled. I find that it is another opportunity for Conservatives to axe the facts, including the fact that we are in a climate emergency. Their party is still arguing about whether the world is round or flat.
I wonder if the member could speak specifically to how the climate emergency is impacting the folks who are currently unsheltered. I know the Conservative leader talks a lot about tent cities, which he regularly demeans. I wonder if she could comment on that.
Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for her tremendous advocacy and for using a human rights-based lens with respect to everything she does.
On addressing the situation of the housing crisis and how climate relates to it, people are being displaced. We had a heat wave in my community of Vancouver East, in British Columbia, and 600 people died. There are people who are unhoused or are living in tent cities because they do not have access to adequate—
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge.
I am very pleased to participate in this debate, and I thank my colleagues.
We are gathered here today because Canadians have a right to know, and it is our duty, as the official opposition, to hold the government to account. We want to know the real impact that the Liberal carbon tax is having on Canadians' wallets and on the Canadian economy.
We are holding this debate today to get to the bottom of things, so that people can form an opinion based on the facts, facts that the government wanted to hide.
The government did not just want to hide this information from the public. We are holding this debate today because of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said about his requests.
I would remind the House that, last week in committee, my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley questioned the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
[English]
My colleague from Manitoba had a very good conversation with the PBO a few days ago in the committee.
[Translation]
I will summarize the exchange that took place at the Standing Committee on Finance.
My colleague said, “Mr. Giroux, in your earlier testimony, you said that you understood that the government had economic analysis on the carbon tax that it has not released. Are you saying that the government has not been transparent with the analysis it has?”
The Parliamentary Budget Officer replied, “I mentioned that the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS, the output-based pricing system. We've seen that—staff in my office—but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.”
That last bit is important. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer told the committee.
My colleague from Manitoba went on, “The government has given you their analysis, but they have put a gag on you, basically, saying you can't talk about it.” The PBO replied, “That is my understanding.”
A government is muzzling the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If that is not keeping an iron grip on information to conceal matters that directly affect Canadians, I do not know what is.
That is why we deliberately moved this motion to hold this debate and force the government to do what it did not want to do. It wanted to hide information. The government even told the Parliamentary Budget Officer to shut up. That is what it said. The government told the Parliamentary Budget Officer not to reference it.
Unfortunately, this brings back very sad memories of a time long ago when one Quebec politician could tell another to shut up. Sadly, we are seeing the same thing happening again today, in 2024, under this Liberal government.
What did we find out next? This morning, just a few minutes before the House started, the government stated that it had released the documents in question. What does this partial documentation tell us? The news for Canadians is very bad. It says in black and white that the carbon tax's true impact on the economy is minus $30.5 billion until 2030.
If I were in government, I might not be very proud of these numbers either, but numbers and facts are stubborn. We Conservatives have been pushing for months to get the real numbers. We are adding even more pressure with today's debate. With a bit of theatrics, the government tabled the documents a few minutes before the House began sitting.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, painting a somewhat graphic and rather gross picture, it was as painful for them as having a tooth pulled, and for good reason, because the tooth was rotten.
Canada's gross domestic product, or GDP, will drop by $30.5 billion by 2030. That is the real effect of the Liberal carbon tax. This was not the first time the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlighted the fact that the carbon tax is going to cost Canadians a lot of money, much more than the government claimed when it said it was going to put the money back into their pockets.
It is pretty amazing. These people keep telling us that there is a price on pollution but they are putting money back into people's pockets.
That is because they collect the money, take out a little bit and put the rest back in the taxpayers' pockets. Do they think people are stupid?
In any case, I can say one thing: Canada's mayors did not find it funny. A few days ago, the Prime Minister was invited to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM. Once again, he repeated his famous line about Canadians getting more money back than they pay. Canada's mayors did not find it funny and started heckling him.
The Prime Minister responded, “Ha ha”. That was his response. His arrogance is unfortunate. It is insulting to Canadians.
On May 5, in an interview on CTV's Power Play, the Parliamentary Budget Officer had this to say:
[English]
“A vast majority of people will be worse off under a carbon pricing regime than without, and we don't expect that to change.”
[Translation]
In the same interview, he went on to say the following:
[English]
“The overall conclusions that the vast majority of households are worse off with the carbon pricing regime than without, that I'm confident will still remain. That is based on our own preliminary analysis but also on discussion we've had on discussions with government officials and also stakeholders.”
[Translation]
This is not the first time the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the Liberal carbon tax is having a negative impact on taxpayers' wallets. He costed the negative impact on the Canadian economy and estimates that Canada's GDP will take a $30.5-billion hit by 2030.
Earlier a minister tabled a series of documents and I asked him some questions about those documents. It reminded me that there is another document that I have been trying to table in the House for months, specifically the report presented to COP28 in December entitled “Climate Change Performance Index 2024”. It shows the results of 67 countries around the world and their actual effectiveness in the fight against climate change. Where does Canada rank after nine years under the Liberal government? On a list of 67 countries, after nine years of a Liberal government, Canada's Liberal effectiveness, as analyzed by scientists around the world, ranks 62nd out of 67 countries. Meanwhile, the Liberals are lecturing everyone else. They say that we are not nice, but they are good. They are so good that Canada ranks 62nd after nine years of this government's management. For months I have been calling for this document to be tabled. The Liberals keep refusing. That is not nice.
What did the minister say in answer to my question about that? He said that the member, referring to me, knows very well that oil development in Alberta is hurting our track record. The cat is out of the bag. That is the minister's problem. In his ideal world, there would be no more oil anywhere. I do not know what planet he is living on, but that is not the reality. Perhaps his ultimate dream is to completely shut down Canada's oil industry, but what will happen if we do that? Oil development will happen elsewhere. Shutting down Canada's industry tomorrow morning will not change much. That is the problem. We need oil.
I am a Quebecker and I keep an eye on what is happening in my province. According to HEC Montréal's numbers, last year, Quebeckers consumed 19 billion litres of oil, which represents an increase of 7%. That is not good news or bad news, it is a fact. The numbers are there. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
If oil production in Canada were to be shut down tomorrow morning, other places would produce it. Who stands to gain if the Liberal government's dream, the minister's dream, comes true? Unfortunately, the Canadian economy does not figure heavily in the minister's dreams. The planet does not stand to gain, but Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries do. That is the big problem with Liberal dogmatism, in contrast to the Conservatives' pragmatism.
When the Liberals say that the carbon tax will reduce emissions, that is not true. What it will reduce is the amount of money in taxpayers' pockets. The Canadian economy will suffer because of this.
[English]
Madam Speaker, on the last point that the member made, he is factually incorrect. He has said that there will be no impact in terms of reduction of GHG emissions. However, the data that the Conservatives begged and pleaded for to be released, data they claimed there was a gag order for it not to be released, the data that the member now has in his hands shows that the total reduction so far in GHG emissions is 80 million tonnes and projected to be 25 million tonnes per year. Therefore, for the member to get up in the House moments ago and completely disregard the data that his party begged to get for weeks, which he now has in his hands, is complete misinformation and false.
Madam Speaker, it is very sad to hear the member say that. The truth is that the real impact on the economy is terrible, minus $30.5 billion until 2030. There will be a direct impact on family households of $1,800. If everything were perfect with the Liberal carbon tax, we may have seen the real impact of it. However, based on the evaluation made, not by the Conservative Party, the Fraser Institute or L’institut économique de Montréal but by the United Nations, especially scientists around the world, after nine years of the government, Canada is 62 out of 67. I am sorry folks, but it does not work.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I was very interested in what my colleague had to say. He even made a historical reference to Maurice Duplessis, which is always nice. That is kind of like what he experienced this morning, is it not? By providing the data, it is almost as though the government told the Conservatives to zip it.
Now, here we are talking about this motion. Ever since this morning, people have been talking about whatever they please. We are not making much progress, but at least I can ask my colleague from the Quebec City region a fairly relevant question.
What does he think of his leader's assertion that he will not invest a penny in the Quebec City tramway?
Madam Speaker, indeed, I do enjoy referencing history. Why not reference history again, but this time, very, very recent history?
Our leader is speaking to various media outlets and made a stop at Radio-Canada. We in the Conservative Party are consistent and logical. Allow me to quote what our leader said in an interview this morning: The tramway, no, busses, yes. Some of the bus proposals would work really well, and I would be open to those kinds of proposals. The City of Quebec and the greater Quebec City area will get their fair share of federal investments.
[English]
Madam Speaker, we are debating a motion put forward by the axe-the-facts Conservatives, which is beside the point at this time. However, I am never going to lose an opportunity to ask the Conservatives why they are continuing to prop up and protect the profits of big oil and gas at a time when we need to be lowering our greenhouse gas emissions.
If the member does not want to listen to me, perhaps he will listen to Amara Possian from Canada team lead, 350.org. She says:
It’s criminal that oil and gas companies are raking in record profits while the rest of us struggle. People across Canada are facing a worsening housing crisis, skyrocketing bills, and climate-driven disasters that threaten our health, homes, and communities. It’s time for the government to stand with the majority of the public, who support taxing Big Oil’s excess profits tax. If our leaders make polluters pay their fair share, we can fund the bold climate action this moment demands.
What does the member say to this person who is advocating for change?
Madam Speaker, I would ask the member where she was three days ago when the six top guns of the petroleum industry appeared at the environment committee, “top guns” meaning CEOs. I do not want to insult anybody. The key people were at committee, thanks to the Conservatives inviting them, and we asked questions of the those people running the oil and gas industry in Canada.
The Conservatives asked questions about reducing emissions, investing in protections for our environment and in new technologies to ensure we reduce emissions, which is, by the way, the first pillar of our policy on the environment and climate change. We want to reduce emissions by investing in new technologies with fiscal incentives. We want to shine the light on green energy. We want to give all the advantages of our natural resources to Canadians. We want to work hand in hand with first nations.
This is where we stand when we talk about the future of our country based on climate change challenges.
Madam Speaker, today's motion is one for the production of documents, arising from the refusal of the government to allow the PBO to release information he had seen that supported the conclusions he had drawn, and that is that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are worse off under the carbon tax when the economic impacts of the carbon tax are taken into effect. This was the latest in the series over time of the carbon tax cover-up.
I think the Liberal member for Whitby thought he had a gotcha moment at committee with the PBO, that he would get the PBO to admit that when we took into account the economic impacts, that somehow the carbon tax was not harmful to Canadians. That was when the PBO, who was having none of it, revealed he had seen the government's data and that this data had supported his conclusions.
When the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley asked the PBO if we could we see this information, the PBO affirmed at committee that he had been gagged. The government was preventing an officer of Parliament from releasing the government's own data.
This is the latest in a pattern that the government has exhibited for nine years now of secrecy, of secrecy by default, of obfuscation and of cover-up, and we have seen this over and over again in a whole series of files. I would like to remind the members of the Liberal caucus who were elected in 2015 that they went door-to-door with their “Real Change Open and Transparent Government” platform. They took it to Canadians in 2015 and said:
It is time to shine more light on government and ensure that it remains focused on the people it is meant to serve. Government and its information should be open by default. Data paid for by Canadians belongs to Canadians. We will restore trust in our democracy, and that begins with trusting Canadians.
What a sick joke after nine years of secrecy, cover-up and an absolute contempt for Canadians and their access to information. In my time here, I have spent quite a bit of time on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and have studied access to information a couple of times. It is appalling the level of secrecy the government continues to insist on.
We saw this with the Winnipeg labs, when the Liberals spent years suppressing information. They actually named the former Speaker of the House in a lawsuit. They went that far as to sue the former Speaker to stop the release of documents, in contempt of Parliament. Kicking and screaming in that episode, they eventually tabled a document and then sought the extraordinary credit for their supposed commitment to access to information.
We have seen this in the ATIP system, which I have also studied at both the defence committee and access to information, privacy and ethics committee. The government, when it was elected, brought in an access to information bill that it claimed was in furtherance of that election promise, which I read earlier. The Information Commissioner of the day said that it was a step backward, that the Liberals actually proactively changed the law to make access to information worse in our country.
Here we are on the morning of an opposition day, where the Conservatives have put forward a production order to ensure that Canadians can get the truth about the government's own information it possesses, as it misleadingly tells Canadians that the carbon tax is somehow good for them, and the Liberals dumped the documents literally moments before the opposition leader moved our opposition motion and spoke to it. Again, in debate, the government wants extraordinary credit, “Why are we debating this motion? We gave them this information.”
Of course, the Liberals gave the information, but only because the motion was on notice and was going to be debated, possibly even supported, by the House, and, if it were supported by the House, it would have held them in contempt if they were to not comply with a production order. That is the MO of the government. It has the idea that it can suppress and hold on to information and conceal the cost of the carbon tax from Canadians.
The document dump we had right before the motion began to be debated in the House revealed that, yes, the carbon tax is a significant drain on GDP. The carbon tax makes Canadians poorer. We are in a moment when Canada has the lowest GDP growth per capita in the G7. It is not growth at all. It is negative growth. It is shrinking. The per capita GDP in Canada is shrinking. Canadians are getting poorer. This is not an opinion of mine. This is a fact. This is per capita GDP. The wealth of the country, divided by its people, is shrinking. That is Canada in 2024, and we need to get off that track.
The carbon tax is not helping. It is a drain on GDP. This is a crisis of our economy, wherein the OECD predicts, in the decades to come, that Canada will be at the bottom of its peer countries. The carbon tax contributes to this. The carbon tax harms the economy and makes Canadians poorer. We know it. The PBO has said this. The data that the government has released supports the PBO's conclusions. The PBO was clear that this data would support his conclusions when he testified before the finance committee a couple of weeks ago.
There are enormous problems facing this country, some of which have been raised by members of all sides in this debate so far today. We have a housing crisis. We have a crisis in the Canadian Armed Forces in recruitment and retention, and in non-availability of equipment and munitions. All of these things are going to require a strong economy. We need a growing economy where people are getting wealthier, not poorer, where people will be able to afford to buy a decent home in a safe neighbourhood, and where we will have the financial and economic capacity to fund a health care system that people can depend upon.
We need a strong economy to be able to fund the desperately needed upgrades and enhancements to our national defence and our armed forces. All of these things are threatened by the government's lack of care for the state of our economy. Liberals are insisting that the carbon tax system that they have created is somehow good for Canadians, even though it is suppressing GDP and making Canadians poorer. They are determined to stick to this, despite the officer of Parliament who told us otherwise.
For a government that claimed and campaigned to be the most open and transparent in Canadian history, in what scenario would an officer of Parliament have to resort to an ATIP to get information from the government, that they would have to formally file an ATIP and, just like other journalists, politicians, researchers and academics, be denied their ATIP?
This morning, the government wants extraordinary credit for the documents it dumped. I took a quick look at the CBC story that came out about this. The CBC's ATIP has not even been complied with. The full disclosure has not been made, yet the government is claiming that it is some sort of hero of openness because, faced with a production order being debated and voted on in this chamber, it came out minutes ahead of it with a document dump. The cover-up continues. The culture of cover-up continues, and it needs to stop.
Madam Speaker, that member just quoted the CBC. He better be careful, or he might get kicked out of his caucus. Conservatives can say whatever they want about being pro-life, but that member had better be very careful, or he might get himself kicked out of caucus for quoting the CBC.
I find it fascinating how he is willing to accept, in the data that was released this morning, the GDP information, but he will not accept the fact that it categorically proves that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off and that the carbon tax has reduced emissions by 80 million tonnes of GHG emissions to date. If he accepts the GDP information, he has to accept the other information. More importantly, when he does talk about GDP, the one thing the document does not have any data on is the cost of doing nothing.
The cost of doing nothing is greater than that $30 billion in GDP that the member references. The cost of doing nothing is about $35 billion in 2030. Why will that member not talk about the cost of doing nothing? Is it not just because the Conservatives do not want to do anything?
Madam Speaker, the member is continuing to mislead people about what the report says and what the carbon tax does to Canadians. This whole discussion is about the economic impact of the carbon tax, and eight out of 10 Canadians are not better off when we measure the economic impact. They are poorer. The GDP reduction proves that this is harmful to the economy, and the PBO has been clear all along that the economic cost of the carbon tax does not make Canadians wealthier.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives just will not stop talking about the carbon tax. In their own way, they are tearing it apart. However, a lot of economists say that this measure will help reduce GHG emissions.
Can the Conservatives be even a tiny bit positive or constructive and tell us how, without a carbon tax, they would reduce greenhouse gases? All I am asking for is a teeny tiny practical example of what they would do to reduce greenhouse gases.
[English]
Madam Speaker, my colleague, our shadow minister of environment, talked about that in his speech, but I want to say to my colleague from the Bloc that his colleagues seemed to think that this motion is unworthy of debate or concern in the House. Do they think that it is okay for the Government of Canada to ignore requests for information with impunity, to gag the Parliamentary Budget Officer and to promise to Canadians openness and transparency but deliver secrecy, obfuscation and cover-ups?
Madam Speaker, I cannot help but think about how incredibly short-sighted it is for us to be talking about the economic impacts on Canadians today without looking at the costs of us doing nothing, as was brought up by my colleague. We know that the climate crisis has incredible economic costs. We know that the economic cost is likely to reduce national GDP by $25 billion by 2025. That is equivalent to $630 per person in lost income, with people earning low incomes being affected the most. We know this. Also, fighting increasingly destructive wildfires costs $1 billion a year, and these costs will only continue to rise.
Does the member agree that the costs of the climate crisis need to be prioritized and that we cannot ignore that the climate crisis is happening as we speak?
Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the member. It seems to be implied that the carbon tax is somehow making a significant impact on climate change. We heard from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent earlier that Canada ranks very poorly in its performance on emissions, so I do not accept the premise that the carbon tax is a solution to the problems that she has outlined.
I would also say to her and her colleagues that there was a time when NDP members were actually quite serious about transparency in government and about the functioning of Parliament. They seem to have abandoned that while they support the Liberals, who will suppress information from an officer of Parliament and refuse to disclose information that is the property of Canadians.
Madam Speaker, everything we heard from the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge was quite literally false. Let us just recap what has happened to get us to where we are today.
Conservatives have been asking for data, not a report. It is not as though they were asking for some secret report that the government had that the PBO wanted to see. What they are asking for is data, and they not asking for anything that is really compiled in a way that is presentable. They were asking for Excel spreadsheets, and not even that.
Notwithstanding the fact that the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, amongst others, will go on about how Liberals are being secretive and not supplying information, this is exactly what we have done. I am sorry if it was not in a timely fashion to suit their needs.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
Notwithstanding the fact it does not suit their needs at this particular time, they received the data. I heard the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge get up to talk about the data and how the data says it is going to affect our GDP. Just so Canadians who are watching can fully understand the impact of this, we are talking about a GDP that was previously projected at $2.68 trillion now being projected at $2.66 trillion. That is what we are talking about.
That is what the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is basing his entire premise on, on the data. If he is willing to accept the data as it relates to GDP, notwithstanding the fact that he has not even begun to consider the cost of climate change, as pointed out to him by me and an NDP colleague, then he must also accept the data, which was produced for Conservatives today, that clearly says that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off as a result of the rebate they receive and that the carbon tax has contributed to 80 million tonnes of GHG emission reductions to date, which is projected to continue and exceed 25 million tonnes per year.
That is the truth. Conservatives asked for the data. Conservatives got the data. Conservatives, such as the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, are now using the data, and specifying it as fact, and quoting CBC articles as fact. Then they have to, by any reasonable logic, also be able to accept the data as it relates to what the impact is on Canadians, how much money they get back, and what the overall impact is of the carbon tax.
It is a bad day for Conservatives. The reality is that they have now found themselves in a position where they just do not know what to do. They got proof this morning that people are better off. They got proof this morning that the carbon tax is actually reducing GHG emissions. They are fumbling around, trying to talk about people that are being prevented from getting the information they were requesting.
The Conservatives are just trying to divert and figure out what their next strategy is. Their strategy has always been the same. The strategy has been built on tapping into the fears and anxieties of Canadians and trying to put the blame on the federal government. Their strategy has been very clear on the carbon tax. It is a communications success, from my perspective.
They have done a really good job at communicating a false narrative to Canadians. That false narrative being that the carbon tax does not work and it affects everybody in a negative way. They have done a good job. I will give them that.
We have done a bad job on communicating how good the policy is. The reality is that we could have done a better job. However, I prefer to be on the side of good policy and bad communication rather than literally telling people falsehoods to try to capitalize off them for political gain, which is exactly what Conservatives are doing. They are doing it again.
The Leader of the Opposition barely spoke about the motion this morning. He decided to talk about capital gains. Here is another perfect example of how Conservatives are attempting to mislead Canadians. For two months, we told Canadians, Conservatives and the House that we would be introducing legislation to bring in a capital gains increase for people who are making over $250,000. Conservatives were silent on it. They were—
Some hon. members: Where's the bill?
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I will get to the bill in a second.
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives were silent on it. They did not say a word about it. The Liberals tried to get them to comment on it, and they would not do it. All of a sudden, at 1:30 p.m. two days ago, the Leader of the Opposition came out to speak. He had more Conservatives than normal sitting behind him. He gave this speech about how this was going to be a tax-killing initiative that would wipe everybody out and spoke all about how the Conservatives were against it.
At the same time, the Conservatives blasted all over social media. This is the reality of the situation. After two months of silence, they pushed the rage-farm button that activated all their trolls, who started blasting emails to everybody about it. When I challenged the Conservative members today on that and asked why they waited two months, the response I got was that the bill had not been introduced. Do they actually think that a single Canadian believes that the Conservatives would silence themselves until a bill was introduced?
The Conservatives do nothing but rail on about misinformation. If they saw an ounce of political opportunity, they would pounce on it like a drop of blood in the ocean with sharks swimming around it. That is the reality of the situation. The Conservatives are all about feeding a false narrative to Canadians so that they can tap into fears and anxiety. They are now attempting to do, with the capital gains tax, exactly what they did with the carbon tax.
For those who are just tuning in, when do they think this discussion about the carbon tax started to pop up in our national discussion? Most people probably think it was sometime last fall or maybe at the end of the summer. That is funny because we have had a price on pollution, a carbon tax, since 2018. Does anybody find it interesting that no Conservative said much about it before? Does anybody find it interesting that every single Conservative who sits on that side of the House ran on pricing pollution? They all ran on the concept of it in 2021.
A number of Conservative members will get up to say they did not run on that and that was their former leader. That is for them to sort out with their leaders, in terms of which parts of the policy they are not willing to stand on. I guess that explains a lot about why certain Conservatives are getting up and talking about being pro-choice and how they want to reintroduce a debate about abortion. That is what we are seeing come from Conservatives now. If they actually believe—
Madam Speaker, I think it is very unfair for the member to make a habit of this, when we know that there are certain members missing from the backbench who have been put in the doghouse permanently for speaking of abortion.
Madam Speaker, I take the bait from the member for Timmins—James Bay a lot easier than he takes it from me. However, I would agree. It is very interesting that somebody has gone into hiding or has been put in protective custody, and that is the member for Peace River—Westlock, who is suddenly missing in action ever since he made his comments about all Conservatives being pro-life.
In any event, with the tax on capital gains, we find ourselves back at the same place as we did before with the carbon tax. Conservatives are deliberately spreading misinformation for the purpose of creating anxiety and fear. Conservatives have no interest in helping anybody other than the one per cent, other than their rich buddies. They do not care about the impacts.
The Conservatives do not realize or they do not want to accept the fact that the data they begged and pleaded for, the data that was released to them today, shows that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off, that the carbon price is actually working and that it has contributed to reducing GHG emissions. Although there is a portion that talks about the gross domestic product impact, they are not even starting to consider the fact that doing nothing is going to cost a lot more, as the minister indicated today.
Madam Speaker, I really liked the theatrics from the member opposite. I am really confused, though. He made several statements about misinformation. He talked about how the documents proved that greenhouse gas emissions were actually reduced. The member can agree with me on that one. However, I am quite confused here, because we asked an Order Paper question back in November: “[D]oes the government measure the annual amount of emissions directly reduced from the federal carbon price...?” I do not even know how the member would know this. The response was that the “government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by the federal carbon pricing.” I will repeat that in case the member did not get it. It says the “government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by the federal carbon pricing”, more affectionately known as the carbon tax.
Can the member respond to that?
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the Conservatives will mislead and create false narratives. I said very clearly in the beginning that what they were asking for was not a report. This was not a report that was produced with a glossy cover and everything. This is the data. These are literally the Excel spreadsheets that have the data on them. Was that information compiled from those data sheets up until this point? Apparently, according to the member, it was not. However, if he were to actually take the data that is in there and look at it, he should come to that conclusion.
If the member is willing to accept the fact that GDP is affected by this, then he also needs to accept the fact that the data shows that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off and that greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by 80 million tonnes to date.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives moved this motion because the Liberals wanted to censor the report. Now the report has been released.
The Liberals keep saying that they have stopped funding oil, although they continue to fund oil companies in many ways, from building pipelines to subsidizing new carbon capture processes.
Could my colleague comment on the fact that the Liberals keep saying they will stop subsidizing oil but, in fact, they are still funding oil companies?
[English]
Madam Speaker, the member said that a report was tabled. Once again, this is not a report. This is data. It is literally data sheets, Excel spreadsheets.
The member asked a question about funding big oil. We do not have fossil fuel subsidies anymore. We do have initiatives to help with things like carbon capture. Do I think that carbon capture is the long-term solution? Absolutely not. Do I support the idea of carbon capture in the interim? I know how much fossil fuel we need and depend on right now; if there is an interim solution to get us to another place, then I support carbon capture.
However, I reject the premise of the question. It suggests that we are continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, but we are not. We phased it out earlier than in the original timeline we had.
Madam Speaker, since the axe-the-facts Conservatives have brought forward another motion that is moot at this point, I am going to ask the member another question that is very important to constituents in my riding, particularly around the greener homes program. We know the greener homes program was—
I have to interrupt the hon. member. I have a point of order from the hon. member for the Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.
Madam Speaker, we are debating a motion. Just on a point of relevance, the member admitted that she is not going to ask a question related to the motion.
That has been pretty much the norm since I have been sitting in this Chair.
The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Madam Speaker, it is really challenging to speak to a motion that is moot at this point. Related to the motion, and more important to my constituents, is the greener homes program. It was abruptly cancelled, leaving out many people who were relying on this program to build more resilient homes, to adapt to the climate emergency and to save money. We have seen small businesses in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith having to lay off staff members as a result of the abrupt end to this program.
Could the member share with constituents in my riding why there was an abrupt closure of this program, although inefficient? What are the Liberals going to do to help people across Canada to build more efficient homes?
Madam Speaker, I do not have the answer to that question. When we debate the budget bill, I would be happy to get an answer specifically to give to the member.
However, I will agree with the member on one thing. She started her question by saying that we could have been talking about a lot of other things. I found it really interesting that the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge basically said the same thing. Meanwhile, Conservatives have only been talking about the carbon tax in every opposition motion they have moved since this Parliament began.
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this with great amusement, as well as to the members' references as to why we have not actually been addressing the motion. As the member opposite said, the motion is actually quite irrelevant at this point. I want to talk a bit about what the Conservatives have been doing recently in terms of actually wasting the time and resources of the House; the current motion is another example of that.
I sit on the environment committee, and we repeatedly get these motions from the Conservative Party asking to produce this, to produce that and to produce all the information on the model. I am not quite sure what they do with the information when we produce it. However, it is incredibly costly for the government to produce all these documents, in both official languages, solely to be used for political purposes.
The Conservatives talk about the price on pollution program. First, they spread misinformation in calling it a carbon tax. We know that it is a levy. As reaffirmed today by the parliamentary budget office, the rebate associated with the levy benefits eight out of 10 households across the country. However, the Conservatives repeat time and time again that it is impacting affordability for Canadians. The Conservatives like to scare people and say it is part of the problem and not the solution. They never, ever talk about the real problem that we are facing with climate change.
Liberals know there is an affordability issue. We have been working very hard to introduce measures to help Canadians with the affordability crisis, which was largely the result of the postpandemic economy combined with supply chain disruptions from the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. We acknowledge that there is an affordability crisis, and we have been addressing it. However, the Conservatives vote against every program we introduce to address the affordability crisis. They then introduce scare tactics and motions that say the price on pollution program is the problem, and it is causing all the problems in Canada.
Well, I have said it before and I will say it again: The Conservatives not only need lessons in basic math, but they also need lessons in causality and correlation. Just because things happen at the same time does not mean they are caused by the same thing. The Conservatives do this over and over again. We can look at the price on pollution program, and we can see that when the carbon levy was increased, inflation came down. Do the Conservatives ever discuss that? How do they explain that if, in fact, it is the price on pollution that is causing inflation?
We can look beyond our borders to other countries and see that inflation has been worse in those countries. Some do not have the same kind of price on pollution program we have; they have different programs to address climate change. How does that work, if the price on pollution program is causing inflation and our affordability crisis? Is our price on pollution program here in Canada causing global inflation? Are we that powerful? Does it make that big a difference? I do not think so, and I do not think the Conservatives think that either. I think that they believe it is to their political advantage to continue to say that this is what is causing the problem.
However, let us look at this in terms of what it is doing. Once again, today, the parliamentary budget office reconfirmed that eight out of 10 Canadian households receive more back in the carbon rebate than they pay through the levy. The only households that may not do better through this program, for which it does not address affordability, are those making over $250,000 a year; yesterday, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say the same households were the poor, the ones who needed help. The Leader of the Opposition was arguing that households that realized capital gains of over $250,000 a year somehow needed a tax break. I do not know where the Conservatives have been looking at Canadians and Canadians' wages and their livings, but those people I know who realize capital gains of more than $250,000 a year or who make more than $250,000 a year are generally not the ones lining up at food banks. They are generally not the ones having problems paying for dental care or child care.
When we talk about the Canadians whom the government is helping, we are talking about the Canadians who do need help, not the wealthy and the corporate elites who are making more than $250,000 a year, either in earned income or in capital gains. For the people who earn less than $250,000 a year, who have capital gains of less than $250,000 a year or who perhaps do not have a corporation they are putting their income into at a lower tax rate so they do not pay the normal earned income tax rate, the programs we have put in place over the past year, and I would say since 2015, have benefited them.
The price on pollution will not only address the affordability crisis; it also addresses the climate crisis. Unlike those of us who agree that there is an affordability crisis and a climate crisis, it seems that many members on the opposite side, in fact some of the members who sit on the environment committee with me, do not acknowledge there is a climate crisis.
Some of the questions that are asked in committee and some of the witnesses that they bring are so astounding that I want to fall off my chair. Some of the other witnesses who know the science, know the facts, actually look like they are going to have a problem in committee, and I worry about them because of some of the things that are being said.
We need to have a government whose members all understand that the climate crisis is real and that not taking action is not a possibility; it is not an option. We have to take action, and we know from experts around the world, from experience in other countries and from experience here in Canada, in British Columbia, that a price on pollution program works. In fact, we have been told again that 30% of the reduction in emissions we are putting out will be from the price on pollution program. We have already seen the reduction in carbon emissions due to the price on pollution program, and the data has been presented again and again.
All the Conservatives can do to address that is to say, “Let's see every detail of the model.” In fact, they wanted a spreadsheet. The modelling that is used to look at what the economy would do under a price on pollution scenario or without a price on pollution scenario is so complex and so great that we were told that a mainframe would have to be brought in. The data could not be given to the Conservatives, and they could not start to analyze it themselves.
Nonetheless, they demanded that from ECCC, which has a lot of very important work to do on things like the biodiversity legislation that is being advanced to protect 30% of Canada's nature, and the really important work to do in helping Canadians adapt to climate change. That work is being supplanted by producing more and more documents, in both official languages, and that is irresponsible. For members of the House, a party, to be trying to set us back in that way is completely irresponsible.
I hope that Canadians listening to the debate today will understand that yet another Conservative motion means time being used in the House of Commons, time being used in committee, and time when we would be asking departments to produce documents so the Conservatives can nitpick and try to find little things that they think are not exactly correct. They do this rather than listening to 300 experts from around the world and rather than looking at the science, the facts and the data to see the evidence that not only is there a climate crisis but also that a price on pollution program will help address that crisis and benefit their constituents as well as mine.
We need to support Canadians through the affordability crisis, and we need to support Canadians now and in the future by fighting the climate crisis. That is exactly what our government is doing, and I really wish the Conservatives would get on board and move forward instead of moving backwards.
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with amusement, and it brings several questions to mind. First, can the member tell us how much carbon tax she pays on her mansion in Cohasset, Massachusetts? How much capital gains has she paid on the flipping of multiple properties in the Cape Cod area? Did the Liberal luxury tax apply to her—
Madam Speaker, it is about policy. It is about the Liberal policy.
Did the Liberal luxury tax apply to your million-dollar yacht? It is pretty hypocritical that you talk about the carbon—
I do not talk about any such stuff. The hon. member is speaking to the member directly and not through the Chair.
Madam Speaker, it is pretty hypocritical that the member talks about the carbon tax and the climate emergency, and yet we realize that her husband made his fortune from the oil and gas industry.
Does the member have any comments on that?
Madam Speaker, sure I do. I do not own a mansion in Cohasset, and we have never flipped properties in Cape Cod.
When we were in the energy business, we were one of the most efficient providers of energy in the region, through what was called cogeneration, which was one of the most efficient ways to provide energy. This was in the 1990s before renewable energy sources. Yes, I worked in the industry. I am aware of the industry. I actually have a background in it as well as a degree in finance.
If you would like to talk about my personal life, I can tell you a lot—
Madam Speaker, it is important, for the record, that the member just accused the Speaker of asking questions about her personal life. I do not think the Speaker is interested in questions like that.
Precisely, which is why I rose. I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Madam Speaker, we know, even in the banter back and forth in the House, how serious Conservatives and Liberals are about the climate emergency. I am wondering how my hon. colleague feels about her government's buying a pipeline that is costing over $30 billion. I know that there is banter about who cares about climate more. Many of the Conservatives are climate denialists, are axing the facts and are still debating whether the world is flat.
I would ask what my hon. colleague thinks about her government's buying a pipeline.
Madam Speaker, I agree that the Conservatives are still arguing about whether the world is flat and whether climate change exists. We clearly know it does, and we are taking steps to transition our economy from an oil and gas economy to an economy based on green energy. That transition takes time. We have put in many policies and programs, from electric vehicles to clean energy, capping methane and capping emissions in the oil and gas industry, which is working towards that.
We know that currently Canadians and others around the world are using oil and gas. Our objective is to transition as quickly as possible and continue to move forward to fight climate change.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the Liberals say they have stopped subsidizing oil, but they continue to do so indirectly.
They are subsidizing big oil through the pipeline project, as well as through all the subsidies to help carbon capture and, basically, to help make tar sands oil cleaner.
Does my colleague think that oil companies really need these tax credits? Will this not just lead to even more greenhouse gases?
[English]
Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate around the subject. In fact, the environment committee right now is talking about sustainable finance, the transition and categorizing investments as transition or green.
As I said earlier, we are an economy in transition. Oil and gas has been a major part of our economy. Anything oil and gas companies can do now to reduce emissions helps us reach our goals. Ultimately we want zero emissions. We want a cap on emissions and to get to net zero in every sector of our economy. That is what we are working toward, but there is a transition period and CCUS is part of that transition.
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour today of a very reasonable motion that I believe members of Parliament from all parties should support, moved today by the leader of the official opposition.
When making any major decision, it is important to weigh the costs and the benefits. That is true in the private sector, true in life in general and especially true for politicians when we are deciding on government policy. That includes environmental policy, and the Liberals' carbon tax, their hallmark policy meant to address global warming and climate change, should be no exception.
When the Liberals introduced their carbon tax in 2019, it was set at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalents, a little over 4¢ on a litre of gas. Since then, the Liberals have increased the carbon tax every year so that it now stands at $80 per tonne, about 18¢ per litre. The Liberals say that they will continue to increase the carbon tax every year for the rest of the decade until it reaches $170 per tonne, about 40¢ on a litre of gas.
To look at it another way, if the gas tank of a typical car holds about 50 litres of gas, that means that in 2030, the average Canadian will pay an extra $20 on a tank of gas each and every time he or she fills up the car at the gas station.
However, the carbon tax applies to so much more than just filling up one's tank with gas. It applies to home heating. It applies to heating of commercial businesses. It applies to heating of schools, hospitals and municipal buildings. It applies to farmers who have to heat their barns and dry their grain, which is why the Conservatives have been advocating for the passage of Bill C-234 to exempt farmers' grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that these costs would not be passed on to consumers.
In fact last winter, Environment and Climate Change Canada was even going so far as to contact pizzeria and bagel shop owners about their wood-burning ovens, to see whether they should be subject to the carbon tax. Fortunately, it did not go through with the measure, but it shows just how wide-ranging and sweeping the Liberals' carbon tax has been on every aspect of Canadians' lives.
It seemed perfectly reasonable that, last April, the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested from Environment and Climate Change Canada its internal analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax. When Environment and Climate Change Canada responded last month, there was one sentence in the reply letter that was very troubling. It read, “The data the Department is providing contains unpublished information. As such, I request you to ensure that this information is used for your office’s internal purposes only and is not published or further distributed”.
I see no good reason for the government's analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax to be withheld from members of Parliament or from Canadians at large. If we as elected officials are responsible for making the best decisions possible for Canadians, if we are responsible for weighing the costs and the benefits of the policy, then it makes no sense for the costing analysis to be withheld.
This morning, because of today's motion, the Liberal government released at least part of the information. We now know, according to the government, that the carbon tax is costing the Canadian economy $20 billion per year, roughly $1,200 per household. I have to say that it is extremely frustrating that a government that once claimed to be transparent by default is still playing games and blocking access to important information.
Now that I have outlined some of the costs of the carbon tax, I think that it is fair for Canadians to ask, “What are the benefits?” The stated objective of the carbon tax is to prevent global warming and climate change, so this question has to be asked: “By how many degrees Celsius has global warming decreased as a result of Canada's carbon tax?” That question is fundamental to the whole issue. Is it half a degree Celsius? Is it 0.1°C? Is it 0.01°C? Canadians deserve to know what we are getting for that extra $20 on a tank of gas.
I would like to read a quote from the government's report entitled “How Pollution Pricing Reduces Emissions”, which was referred to in the department's response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The first line of the report reads, “Every day, we see the increasing impacts of climate change and they’re costing Canadians more and more.”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Madam Speaker, let me reiterate the quote from the department's report. It reads, “Every day, we see the increasing impacts of climate change”. Right off the bat, one has to infer that the carbon tax must not be working very well if the department's own report is telling us that every day, we we are seeing increasing impacts of climate change.
The report continues, “A price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to the more intense wildfires, droughts, and floods caused by climate change.” That is fair enough. If that is the position the government wants to take, then that is fine. All we are asking on this side of the House is if the government could please show its work, all of its work, not just what the minister grudgingly released this morning.
It should not take a full day of parliamentary debate to drag the government, kicking and screaming, into being transparent. The report mentions wildfires, so that raises this question: how many fewer wildfires have we had as a result of the carbon tax? The report also mentions droughts. How many fewer droughts have we had as a result of the carbon tax? The report mentions floods. How many fewer floods have we had as a result of the carbon tax? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I strongly suspect that the effect of Canada's carbon tax on all of these things is infinitesimally insignificant.
However, if Environment and Climate Change Canada has done some analysis and some studies to shed light on these subjects, I, as a member of Parliament, would certainly like to read them, without having to resort to a full day of parliamentary debate.
It is very reasonable for Canadians to ask if there is a better way. I believe there is: technology, not taxes. Canada has tremendous potential for the development and application of new environmentally friendly technologies. At the environment committee, experts shared research with committee members about the benefits of irrigation and how increased agriculture production can sequester more carbon out of the atmosphere with improved irrigation.
In the southeast corner of my home province of Saskatchewan, there is a major carbon capture and storage facility at a coal-burning power plant, which allows for the existing infrastructure to remain in place while storing carbon under the ground instead of releasing it into the air. In northern Saskatchewan, there are massive reserves of uranium, which can be used in nuclear reactors to generate electricity without any emissions.
However, if we are going to plot the best way forward and make good public policy decisions, then we need to have good information on which to base our decisions. That means the government must be transparent by default, as it promised to do years ago. Therefore, I support the motion that would require the government to produce all of these relevant documents.
Madam Speaker, I know there was some harassment going on by the NDP, but I came to the member's defence. It was a wonderful speech.
There has been a statement made around here all morning about getting facts out, and the Liberals are now claiming they can prove that they have supplied the documents showing that emissions are actually being reduced by the carbon tax. Meanwhile, we have an answer. We asked a direct question of the government, of the environment minister. We asked, “does the government measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from...carbon pricing”, carbon levy, or whatever they want to call it. “Carbon tax” is what we more affectionately call it. Here is their answer, and I think the Speaker would find this very interesting: “the government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing.”
How does the math work? How does the science work? What is the rationale of any Canadian expecting that this carbon tax would have any impact on reducing emissions?
Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the environment committee.
I think it is important for people to understand that today's debate is about just one small piece of the puzzle we are trying to put together. We have requested some particular documents, and the government grudgingly provided them this morning, but this is a regular occurrence at the environment committee. We are constantly asking the minister and the department to show their work, to show how the carbon tax has been increasing and to show what effect it is having on emissions. They keep stonewalling. We can never seem to get a straight answer out of the government, and it is extremely frustrating for members of Parliament who are trying to do their jobs.
Madam Speaker, the member opposite made a speech that referred to the fact that we have not seen an immediate impact from the price on pollution program. He mentioned that he and his colleague, who asked the other question, are both on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
I was wondering if perhaps the member could explain a little to us about his knowledge of how we got to this climate crisis, how long it took for the inventory to build up and what the impacts of climate change are. I am sure that he has done a lot of reading about this issue, since he is on the environment committee. I would really be interested to hear his perspective on why he believes that a crisis that took decades to build, with emissions that Canada, as well as the rest of the world, has been putting into the air, would be solved in a matter of years.
Madam Speaker, I never said that I believed that the carbon tax would solve this problem in a matter of years. It seems that this argument has been very strongly implied by the Liberals on the other side of the House. What Conservatives have been saying for years is that man-made CO2 emissions have been happening for a couple of centuries now. This is a very long-term problem that should be solved with long-term solutions, in particular the development and the application of new technologies. However, what the Liberals have been doing over the last few years is increasing the carbon tax, year after year, and I think it is very reasonable for Canadians to ask what they are getting for all of the pain and suffering.
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives say that they want to support Canadians on the question around affordability of oil and gas, yet the Conservatives voted against the NDP's motion to take the GST off home heating. Why?
Madam Speaker, I cannot recall the particulars of that particular motion, but I think it is safe to say that Conservatives are in favour of making life more affordable for Canadians. That includes reducing and eliminating the carbon tax and not jacking up the capital gains tax, as the government announced earlier this week.
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today. I thought I would start with a bit of a recap as to how we got to this place
I am a proud member of the environment committee, one of the few on our side that brings a heavy dose of common sense and rationality to a committee that is generally full of activists who care more about reducing emissions at all costs than about economic growth.
We have, for months, been pushing to have the Liberal government release the economic and emissions reduction modelling to the committee and to Canadians. We have been stonewalled. On occasion, we have been able to make breakthroughs with our opposition partners. However, at the end of the day, the government has provided us with nothing that we have asked for.
In fact, as it relates to today's motion, I happened to have a meeting with the PBO's office just hours after he appeared at the finance committee to discuss the change in the data that he was using for his economic modelling. The Liberal government was freaking out about a so-called mistake, but the reality was that their data aligned completely with the government's. In fact, it was a secret, hidden report that had been handed over to the PBO, but he was gagged. He was not allowed to hand over that Excel document that showed, on a province-by-province, sector-by-sector basis, what the financial implications to the Canadian economy were.
Therefore, we move forward to today, when we are bringing forward this important motion. The Liberal government decided that today is the day. I do not think, without today's motion, that it was going to release this dataset that we have long been asking for. This dataset is raw data. It is not convoluted, watered down and confused by Liberal talking points. It shows, just as we have been saying, that the carbon tax is severely inhibiting our economic growth and is making Canadians poorer.
The PBO has repeatedly stated that he is confident in the analysis, which they have presented in the most recent report, that shows that Canadians are worse off under the carbon tax, because it aligns with this document. We have been proven right today by the government finally relinquishing this data.
It is absurd on so many levels. I have only been here just under a year and have seen the culture of secrecy and the hiding of any pieces of information that do not fit the narrative of the Liberal government. Its hypocrisy knows no bounds. Let us recall that this was the government that was going to be “open by default”. It was going to usher in this new era of transparency in government. It was going to do things differently.
However, time and time again, it has failed to live up to that, and in fact, it is getting worse. It seems as though every time there is a new scandal or a new cover-up, Liberals say, “Hold my beer. I have a better one.” Then today, the Liberals come out and want credit as heroes for releasing the information, which was gathered and put together by taxpayer-funded bureaucrats, that shows that our economy is in fact worse off under their policy. They have the gall to come out and say, “Look at us. We are transparent”, but it is only because Conservatives brought forward today's motion.
The report's data shows that over $25 billion of our economic GDP will be lost by 2030 under the Liberal plan. Of course, this does not include all of the other job-killing, radical policy ideas that the Liberal government has cooked up over the past nine years, which have destroyed economic growth in Canada. Our GDP per capita has declined in four consecutive quarters, and Statistics Canada just revealed that Canada's unemployment rate has also increased. In fact, for jobs to keep up with the population growth, Canada would have needed an additional 33,000 jobs in May, and we came nowhere near it. Meanwhile, the United States created 272,000 jobs within its economy, and our economy continues to fall behind.
There are warning signs all over the place, as long as people are willing to not stick their heads in the ground and ignore them. It is obvious that Canadians are struggling and that our economy is sluggish, if growing at all. This is according to the Statistic Canada and the International Monetary Fund reports that show just how perilous our falling GDP per capita numbers and problems truly are.
We are experiencing the worst per person income drop in the G7 over the last five years. The Americans' GDP per person has grown by more than 8% since 2019, while we have fallen. If we compare ourselves on a state-by-state basis, Canada ranks among the poorest states, including places like Alabama.
Simply put, our economy is vastly underperforming our greatest competitor, our greatest neighbour, but most importantly, our most integrated trading partner. I wish I could show the chart that shows that growth here in the House because it truly is staggering, and it is not surprising to see when that separation of GDP per person began.
If our economy had simply grown at the average rate, Canadians would be $4,200 richer than the costly coalition has left them. I think I and all of my colleagues know this, but my friends know this too. They recognize that, despite having good jobs, they are struggling. They are certainly not saving. They are simply falling behind. It is one of the steepest falls in the standard of living in the history of our country.
We are in a cost of living crisis. We can look at the cost of groceries. I assume all of us go to the grocery store; we see the same thing. We can put ourselves in the shoes of people who are trying to support a family and understand the challenges that they are going through when they are choosing products, whether they are healthy or not, for their children in the grocery store each and every week. The Liberal-NDP government's record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high.
The dream of home ownership is simply dead for so many Canadians. Canadians are struggling to stay afloat. What do the Prime Minister and his coalition partners do? They give us a 23% carbon tax hike. That is the anvil the Liberals are going to throw Canadians; they can sink or swim, and good luck to them. Of course, there are the increases on the prices of gas, groceries, home heating and everything else. It all adds up. Millions of people in this country are using food banks each and every month. It is hardly the country that many of us recognize and certainly not the one I grew up in.
In what crazy world does it make sense to raise taxes, yet again, on our job creators, on our students, on our families and on our seniors? There is a growing, and rightfully so, groundswell of support to scrap the carbon tax once and for all. It comes from provincial Liberals, provincial NDP members, provincial Conservatives and the federal Conservatives. We all recognize, as Canadians do, that a 23% carbon tax hike at a time of economic stagnation and, for many, devastation, simply makes no sense. It lacks common sense.
Let us not forget that, as it relates to the carbon tax, there are over 130 first nations in Ontario taking the Prime Minister and the government to court over that carbon tax.
It is obvious that, in this chamber, we are the only party that will axe the tax, and, after the next carbon tax election, I cannot wait for us to fulfill that promise. Every day, in the meantime, I am hearing from constituents. I think all of my colleagues undoubtedly are. If members opposite are willing to say that their constituents are not saying that they are frustrated, that they are tired, that they are feeling poorer and that they are divided, I simply do not believe them.
The government needs to focus on job creation and growth, putting criminals behind bars and reducing the wasteful government spending that is driving up the debt in this nation and keeping our interest rates higher for longer. The reality is it has never been clearer, at least to me and I think to most Canadians, that we are in desperate need of a new government. Canada has had the worst growth in the G7, the worst in Canada's history since the Great Depression. Housing costs have doubled, rising faster than in any other G7 nation. About 76% of youth believe they will never own a home, and millions of people are going to food banks.
The government has been sabotaging our economy by taxing farmers during a food crisis, by taxing home builders during a housing crisis, by taxing doctors away from our country during a health care crisis, and by taxing small businesses, the backbone of our economy, and our job creators, during an economic growth crisis.
In fact, it was recently reported that over 120,000 people have left this country. They emigrated to the United States, because they saw a better opportunity there. They saw a government that respects individual freedom and respects their ability to drive prosperity for themselves, their families and their communities. I hate to say it, but right now it seems tough to be a proud Canadian.
However, I am not giving up. I am a proud Canadian. It was not like this nine years ago, and it will not be like this after the carbon tax election, because it is time to bring home the Canada we remember, the Canada we recognize, the Canada we want and the Canada we deserve.
Madam Speaker, I think it is very important to clarify something for the people at home. When we talk about requesting data from the government, we are not talking about hypersensitive data or national state secrets. We are talking about bits and bytes. We are basically talking about computer code. It is not even an Excel spreadsheet, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has said.
The headline in the Globe about an hour ago was, “Household wealth jumps to record on stock rally”. We have record household wealth and we have a price on carbon, and we know the Conservatives love correlations.
What does the member have to say about that correlation?
Madam Speaker, first, in reference to the comments of my colleague, the chair of our committee, regarding data, the file that was given to the PBO was an Excel document. At that committee, we have been frustrated time and time again by a level of secrecy that is unheard of and a desire to hide every piece of evidence that does not fit with Liberal priorities.
My colleague is right. There are people who have become a heck of a lot richer in this country. Their friends, the Liberal insiders, have got richer while the people across this country who are working hard and playing by the rules are the ones who are suffering each and every day. That is who we are going to fight for on this side of the aisle.
Madam Speaker, Conservatives, of course, say that they are against the carbon tax. Last week, the NDP called on the big oil CEOs at committee to answer to Canadians for their corporate greed. Those CEOs told the committee that they support carbon pricing.
The Conservatives spend so much time defending the oil and gas industry, so why are they fighting against a policy that even the CEOs say is good for Canada?
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Senator Joseph Day
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to recognize one of southern New Brunswick's best: Senator Joseph Day. Joe grew up in Hampton, New Brunswick. He attended CMR in Saint-Jean and then went on to RMC, where he graduated in engineering. He then pursued law at Queen's University and a master's degree at Osgoode Hall Law School. Joe spent his entire career largely in law, which included roles at JDI, as chair of the New Brunswick Forest Products Commission, and in the practice of intellectual property law.
In 2001, Joe got the call to serve in the Senate. For 19 years, Senator Day proudly represented New Brunswick. Always working with all sides in a strong commitment to southern New Brunswick, Joe led positive change at every level.
I am proud to have called him a friend, as I know many in the House did. To Joe's family and friends, in particular his wife Georgie and his children Emilie and Fraser, I want to extend deepest condolences on behalf of everyone in the House of Commons.
Bill C-41
Madam Speaker, Liberal government incompetence is undermining the ability of Canadian development organizations to support the world's most vulnerable people. Afghanistan and other terrorist-controlled areas in the world are often among the poorest. Canadian tax dollars go to large UN-affiliated multilateral organizations present in these areas, but private Canadian organizations are generally barred from working in the same areas.
Recognizing this problem, MPs from all parties came together more than a year ago to negotiate, amend and then adopt Bill C-41. It was not perfect, but the bill created an authorization regime to allow private organizations to go to work in these hard-hit areas. We understood the urgency of getting assistance to Afghanistan before another winter.
Unbelievably, the Liberals have failed to implement the bill for over a year. There are no authorizations and no applications, and there is no help. What a disgrace. The bill had a one-year review deadline, but after a year there is literally nothing to review. This probably will not make the headlines, but people on the other side of the world will die because Liberal government incompetence blocked private development assistance from getting to them.
Mayor of Mississauga
Mr. Speaker, let the House of Commons congratulate Carolyn Parrish as our newly elected Mayor of Mississauga. Mayor Parrish's election is a testament to her unwavering dedication, passion and tireless efforts to serve our community. Throughout Mayor Parrish's career, she has demonstrated deep commitment to the people of Mississauga, always striving to improve the lives of residents and make our city a better place for everyone. Mayor Parrish's vision for Mississauga is one that resonates with all of us: a city that is inclusive, innovative and forward-thinking. We have seen her dedication in action, from her advocacy for housing to her efforts in fostering community engagement and addressing the needs of all citizens.
Our Mississauga colleagues and I look forward to our continued collaboration as we build an even brighter future for Mississauga. We are excited to see all that we can accomplish together and the positive impact that Mayor Parrish and council will make on our great city.
Congratulations once again to Mayor Carolyn Parrish.
[Translation]
Yannick Le Mouël
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the successes of an outstanding homegrown athlete. An athletics enthusiast from a very young age, Yannick Le Mouël has racked up a whole host of titles, including world champion in the 60-metre hurdles, which he won at the 2023 masters championship in Torun.
Just as important as his individual achievements, if not more so, are his involvement in the community and the way he spreads his love of sport. He shares his enthusiasm with Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu athletes aged seven to 78, whom he coaches on a regular basis. He mentors young hopefuls at École secondaire du Triolet and the Université de Sherbrooke. Finally, he supports children with multiple disabilities at École Marie-Rivier and organizes Olympic games for them.
Despite his busy schedule, Mr. Le Mouël still finds time to train and will be taking part in the Pan-American Masters Games in Cleveland in July and the world championships in Gothenburg, Sweden, in August.
I wish Mr. Le Mouël every success in his upcoming competitions.
[English]
Long-Term Care
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising to acknowledge the vital role long-term care institutions hold in our communities and to recognize the incredible leaders, staff and families who support the thousands of Canadians who live in long-term care homes.
[Translation]
I had the privilege of working in the retirement home sector for over 20 years, and I saw at first hand the remarkable work that caregivers do to ensure residents receive quality care and have a good quality of life.
[English]
It is my hope that one day soon we will be able to mark June 13 as national long-term care day in Canada.
I especially thank the Canadian Association for Long-Term Care for its important work, advocacy and its support as we begin the process of creating a national long-term care day in Canada.
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, business owners across the country are facing unprecedented challenges, including the most anti-business government seen in a generation. The good news is that it was not like this before the Prime Minister, and it will not be like it after.
The Conservatives recognize what small business owners are, economic heroes. They start with a dream, a dream to make their communities a little better by sharing their gift with the world. To start their businesses, they often risk everything, putting their life savings, even their family home, up for grabs. They will work 60, 70, even 80 hours a week, all just to turn around and do it all over again. When times are tough like now, they will often do without so that their employees do not have to.
Canada will emerge from our lost decade of nearly zero GDP per capita growth and Canada will again become a land of prosperity, as Conservatives recognize business owners for what they are, our economic heroes.
2024 Summer Olympics
Mr. Speaker, as you may be aware, the 2024 summer Olympics are next month in Paris. Our Team Canada athletes are a beacon of inspiration for our country, and they bring us so much pride and unity.
This year, I want to recognize some of our very talented athletes from Brampton who have shown excellence in sports while representing Canada, athletes like Michael Ciepiela, who competed in last year's Santiago games in rowing; Scarlett Delgado, a champion boxer; Khamica Bingham, a 100-metre sprinter. Who can forget Brampton native Cassie Campbell, a two-time gold medallist and first female athlete to be inducted into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame. Their dedication and hard work have made our community proud.
I know we are all looking forward to watching our incredible athletes from across Canada compete in the Paris Olympics. Please join me in wishing all our Team Canada athletes the best of luck.
Go Canada, go.
Performing Arts
Mr. Speaker, Vancouver has a vibrant and innovative cultural scene known for its firsts in Canada.
Ballet BC ranks number three in North America. The VSO, the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, featured students playing solos and complex pieces alongside the professional orchestra on the Day of Music last weekend, with five free venues across the city. Now they plan to merge performances of dance, symphony and opera to excite and titillate.
Whether it is student dancers from Arts Umbrella on stage with Ballet BC or Bard on the Beach bringing Shakespeare in modern pop format to audiences, whatever the performing art, Vancouver is bringing a growing awareness of the arts to young and diverse viewers.
We have full houses for live performances in my city. Vancouver is no hick town, colleagues. It rocks the Canadian art scene.
[Translation]
Third Link
Mr. Speaker, the tramway would cost every family in the greater Quebec City area $28,000. The cost of this $11-billion expense is absolutely supported by the Bloc. This is another example among many, including the $500 billion in centralist and inflationary spending for a massive Liberal government in Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois is not a party for the regions and it supports the war on cars with this Prime Minister ignoring the real needs of Canadians.
The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada understands and respects the people in the suburbs and in the regions. He said yes to the absolutely necessary third link just as the previous Conservative government said yes to the construction of the new Samuel De Champlain Bridge. Common-sense Conservatives will continue to respect Quebec drivers by supporting a third link for cars.
The Quebec City area and the Chaudière‑Appalaches region, including all of eastern Quebec, deserves this link to connect the two shores for the economic security of half of Quebec. Let us save our economy and support those who work in the goods and services sector, those who are building Quebec.
[English]
Graduating Class of 2024
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a shout-out to Whitby's graduating class of 2024. These students are the generation that is going to change the game. They should not just dream big, they should dream bold. They should dream like they are the only ones who can change the game, because they can. They should think about how they can make a difference, how they can leave their mark.
They are the ones who will disrupt the status quo, who will innovate, who will create and who will lead with passion and purpose. They are the one who will make a difference, who will make some noise and who will make it happen.
As they close this chapter and embark on their next adventures, they should remember to chase theirs dreams, embrace new experiences and never stop learning. Their voices are powerful. They should not be afraid to speak up, to speak out and to be loud. Canada needs change makers like them, and their time is now.
Therefore, they should make their mark, make a difference and make us proud.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, pasta e fagioli is an Italian meal served for centuries. Today, with the increase in the price of tomatoes by 63%, it is now a delicacy that is very expensive to make.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer told Canadians that the Prime Minister had placed a gag order on his office, blocking the release of the economic impact of the carbon tax. As a result of pressure from the common-sense Conservatives, the Liberal government was finally forced to reveal the fact that the carbon tax would cost Canadians $30.5 billion by 2030.
The Liberals have been hiding this report for years. It is time to come clean and release the report. Italian lovers of pasta e fagioli want to know so they can continue that tradition.
Viva a tutti le italian .
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the costly coalition simply is not worth the cost. The incompetent finance minister is wriggling and squirming to find money to pay for her uncontrolled inflationary spending. What is her latest idea? It is raising taxes on doctors, home builders, entrepreneurs and farmers. Taxing doctors means it is harder to find one. Taxing home builders means fewer homes. Taxing small business means fewer paycheques. Taxing farmers drives up food costs.
Canada's food professor said, “to suggest that this change affects only a minimal number of Canadians...is misleading...it actually affects a lot of businesses, including in the agri-food sector...start[ing] with farmers.” Businesses, jobs, doctors and food production will leave Canada. Everyone left behind will pay the price with fewer jobs and higher costs for everything. This is the opposite of fair. This is a unfair.
Conservatives will restore Canada to a country where hard work earns powerful paycheques that buys affordable food, gas and homes in safe neighbourhoods. It is time for a change. Let us bring it home.
Harold Herbert
Mr. Speaker, any list of great Canadians should include the late Harold Thomas Herbert. Born in England in 1922, Hal served at the Royal Canadian Air Force as a fighter pilot during the Second World War, service that earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross.
[Translation]
In 1948, he moved to Canada and settled in the town of Hudson with the love of his life, Madeleine Lemieux-Herbert. He ran in the federal election and, in 1972, he won a seat in the House of Commons, representing the same riding I proudly represent today.
[English]
Adding to his legacy was this. In 1982, he tabled a private member's bill that received royal assent to formally name July 1 Canada Day. The change from Dominion Day, he felt, would serve to bring Canadians together, anglophones and francophones in his riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges alike.
To honour his achievements, this July 1, the town of Hudson will add Hal Herbert's image to the Canada 150 Mural and honour him in a ceremony, a fitting tribute to a good man who devoted his life to serving those around him.
I wish Hal a happy Canada Day.
Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, living with a disability should not mean being legislated into poverty, yet this is exactly the reality for too many.
In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I hear the heartbreaking stories of people choosing between life-saving medication or food on the table, between a roof over their heads or covering the cost of transportation.
Over one million Canadians live with disabilities. Because of the advocacy of many and the NDP along their side, there was a glimmer of hope, yet short-lived, because despite the Liberals' promise to lift Canadians with disabilities out of poverty, they most definitely have not. Six dollars a day does not even scratch the surface of what is needed. People living with disabilities deserve to live with dignity and respect. We have an opportunity to lift Canadians out of poverty.
I will continue to work day in and day out to represent my constituents, but I am not alone. The NDP will work for people living with disabilities to make sure no more people living with disabilities are living in poverty.
[Translation]
Paul Arcand
Mr. Speaker, it is strange to think that on Monday, we are going to have to get up and go about our day as though nothing has changed.
Our mornings will never be the same again. After 30 years of morning shows and 20 years at the helm of the most-listened-to program in Quebec and all of Canada, Paul Arcand is leaving Puisqu'il faut se lever, the now legendary show on 98.5. However, there is no need to panic, because he is only leaving radio so he can take on new challenges.
Paul Arcand has always been connected to his listeners, always in tune with Quebeckers. All the politicians who appeared on his show, many of whom are right here, decision-makers, leaders of all stripes, knew that they had better watch their step and choose every word carefully.
There was no room for double-talk, intellectual shortcuts or half-truths with Paul Arcand. He was all about getting to the bottom of things. What a band leader he was. What a team he led that succeeded in captivating us day after day for 20 years.
I want to thank Paul Arcand for all these incredible years. I thank him for always being there with us and for us. I hope his future is bright and full of new projects. We are looking forward to them.
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, Canadians can be forgiven for thinking it cannot get much worse than this. However, the NDP-Liberal government has proven them wrong again, this time with a job-killing tax hike on small businesses, farmers, health care and home building. Experts have called it misleading to suggest that this change only affects a minimal number of Canadians, when it actually affects countless small businesses, including farmers.
This tax hike puts the family farm across Canada at risk, jeopardizing the backbone of our agricultural sector. It will result in even higher grocery costs. This economic vandalism is the last thing our country needs.
Instead, the Conservatives will restore the promise of Canada by making our taxes lower, simpler and fairer for farmers and all Canadians.
St. Anne's Anglican Church
Mr. Speaker, Davenport residents are heartbroken. At around 8 a.m. on Sunday, June 9, our beloved St. Anne's Anglican Church was tragically destroyed in a fire, the cause of which has not yet been determined.
Built in 1907, St. Anne's Church was one of the oldest Anglican churches in Toronto. It was not only an architectural triumph, but also a rebel of its time.
Modelled after the Hagia Sophia, it was built in the Byzantine style, when the accepted style at the time was Gothic. In addition, the interior of St. Anne's was decorated by members of the famed Canadian Group of Seven artists.
St. Anne's, to our community, was more than a beautiful church. It was music. It was community. It was service.
My heart goes out to Reverend Don Beyers, the St. Anne's congregation and the entire community for this tragic loss. However, we know that after the darkest part of the night comes the light, and St. Anne's will rise bigger and better.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister's economic vandalism and carbon tax cover-up were exposed today. Following pressure from the common-sense Conservatives, the government has finally revealed the data showing the real cost of its carbon tax, in addition to the cost at the pump. It is $30 billion, or nearly $2,000 for every family in Quebec.
The government tried to destroy the reputation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to hide this information. Why?
Mr. Speaker, as we here in the House already know, math is not the Conservative Party's strong suit, even less so for the Conservative Party leader. I know that he has a hard time counting higher than six, the number of affordable housing units he built when he was the housing minister.
The data proves it. I have it here. Eight out 10 families are receiving more from carbon pricing than they are paying. In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 25 million tonnes as a result of the implementation of carbon pricing.
Mr. Speaker, this minister hid the data proving that this is costing the Canadian economy $30 billion. The annual cost for Quebec is $5 billion, according to row 17, column AN. Yes, this is costing Quebeckers, and the Bloc Québécois is voting to increase this tax.
Why did the government try to destroy the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reputation when he was telling the truth?
Mr. Speaker, once again, he has proven just how ignorant the Conservative Party of Canada is when it comes to climate change, since federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has a system in place.
The Leader of the Opposition simply has to turn around, look three rows behind him and a little to his left. Then he will have the opportunity to talk to someone who voted in favour of carbon pricing in Quebec. All he has to do is ask her for an explanation. If she cannot give him one, I would be happy to.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the economic vandalism and carbon tax cover-up of the government has now been exposed because of relentless Conservative pressure. The government finally leaked out, to the CBC, the economic hit Canada will take, originally reported at $20 billion. With inflation, it is $30 billion a year, or almost $2,000 for every single family in Canada. The government tried to silence the Parliamentary Budget Officer on this.
How can we believe anything the Minister of Environment has to say on taxes?
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague and friend, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, often says in the House, members of the Conservative Party of Canada are entitled to their opinions, not their own sets of facts.
The facts are clear. Eight out of ten Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than it costs them. Not only that, but the data also shows that carbon pricing is already responsible for a reduction in the pollution level of 25 million tonnes. That is half of our emission reduction so far.
Mr. Speaker, those are not my numbers. Those are the minister's numbers. His own department released data moments ago showing that the real cost will be a $30-billion hit to our economy. This is above and beyond the direct cost at the pumps and in people's heating bills. When the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that, the minister denied it. He tried to gag the Parliamentary Budget Officer and shut him up completely.
Why did the minister try to hide the facts and punish a legitimate, hard-working public servant who tried to tell the truth?
Mr. Speaker, I think we have established in the House that math is not the forte of the Leader of the Opposition. He has a hard time counting past six, which is the number of homes built through social housing when he was the minister responsible for housing.
However, the facts are clear: Eight out of ten Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than the pricing system costs. Not only that, but carbon pricing is responsible for half of our emission reduction. Because of carbon pricing, there is less pollution in the atmosphere in Canada by 25 million tonnes.
Mr. Speaker, that eight out of 10 fact does not include the $30 billion of economic costs; that is $2,000 of additional costs for every single family. When we exposed that, he denied it. When the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported on it, they attacked him and tried to gag him. The minister is not worth the economic vandalism. We cannot believe a word he says about taxes. He needs to resign.
When will the Prime Minister fire him?
Mr. Speaker, I noted in the discussion yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition had a newfound respect for economists. However, I will tell him that 300 economists, in addition to the PBO, say eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back. The way it works is directly inverse to income. The Leader of the Opposition ignores the costs of climate change. Here are the facts: His climate plan is to let the planet burn. It is to ignore the economic opportunities associated with the energy transition. Look, this is a fellow who ran in the last campaign on putting in place a carbon price. Who is telling the truth?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Finance
Mr. Speaker, in the supplementary estimates, this government wants to allocate $3.5 million for medals to mark the transition of the Crown in Canada to Charles III.
There was already $22 million budgeted for that. That is $22 million too many, but that was not enough for the Governor General. She wanted an extra 15% and this government said yes.
The Liberals have one last chance to wake up before the vote later on. Will they remove this budget item and avoid wasting millions of dollars on monarchist trinkets?
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois is not really interested in this, but there are Canadians who are attached to our history and who want to recognize that our sovereign, who passed away, was the Queen of the Commonwealth for more than 70 years. When such a thing happens, it is a tradition in Canada for medals to be produced and distributed to those who are interested in such things.
We respect traditions. It is too bad for the Bloc Québécois. Most of its members have refused to allow their constituents to receive any medals.
Mr. Speaker, what is truly despicable is that this additional $3.5 million for medals bearing the image of Charles III is part of the same estimates as the funding that has finally been released for clean drinking water for indigenous communities, which could have used the extra money. That is pathetic.
Frankly, considering that Quebeckers and even most Canadians want nothing more to do with the monarchy, there are a lot of people who think that this money would have been better used in indigenous communities.
Seriously, will the government withdraw that money from the estimates while there is still time?
Mr. Speaker, we see that the Bloc Québécois members are once again trying to stir up trouble with stories like this, when many people in their ridings would like to be able to mark the transition in the monarchy.
They will not be able to do so because the Bloc Québécois made an ideological decision to deprive its citizens of these medals, when they are being made available across Canada. That is really unfortunate for my Quebec friends.
Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, all the experts agree. Everyone agrees. The proposed third highway link is not a good idea. It is too expensive. It will pollute. All that to save five minutes' driving time.
We know that does not matter to the Bloc and the Conservatives, because they support it. For the NDP, however, it is a hard no. The viable, environmentally friendly and efficient solution is a tramway.
Can the Liberals guarantee that not a penny of public money will go to the third link and that investments will instead be made in green solutions for Quebec City, such as the tramway?
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my NDP colleague that this is a provincial matter. It is a provincial undertaking.
The Government of Canada has said that we will always be there for public transit projects. Why? Because that is the way of the future, contrary to the Conservative vision, which involves eliminating public transit projects. They do not believe in public transit. They do not believe in the fight against climate change. They will do absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, we will get on board with public transit projects.
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, for decades, Liberal and Conservative governments have ignored indigenous people's needs. As a result, the infrastructure gap is at billions of dollars. The Liberals committed to closing the gap by 2030, but they have committed less than 1%. This is just pennies.
Indigenous peoples deserve the same housing, roads and clean water as others. When will the Liberals follow through on their promises and close the gap so that indigenous peoples can thrive?
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that this country has had a deplorable history of depriving indigenous communities of the things that they need to thrive.
In fact, since we have taken office, spending on indigenous infrastructure and priorities has increased by 185%. It speaks to the lack of effort by those Conservatives, when they were in government, to actually prioritize the needs of indigenous children. We will keep working to close that gap.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, today, the government was forced to admit that the carbon tax will cost every single Canadian household more than $1,800 in lost GDP. They kept a $30-billion secret. Not once in anything ever released claiming that Canadians were somehow better off with the carbon tax did the minister include these devastating economic costs that he knew existed. It was more important for him to continue to spread the falsehood.
Canadians know they deserve a minister who will tell the truth. If he is incapable of that, when is he going to resign?
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in the House, it is great to see that the Conservative Party of Canada now actually believes that economists are thoughtful and give good advice. Three hundred of them signed a letter that told people eight out of 10 Canadian families do get more money back.
I would encourage my hon. colleague to read that letter. Certainly, I would say that, as we move forward, we must have a plan to address climate change, and we must do so in a manner that is affordable. That is exactly what carbon pricing does. That is something we will continue to do, balancing the environment and the economy, versus a party that actually has no plan for the environment whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government gagged the Parliamentary Budget Officer that actually told Canadians the truth; it then cherry-picked portions of the data that support its version of the truth. This makes it look even more guilty.
If the Liberals truly believed that the carbon tax was helping, they would release the report. Instead, they kept a $30-billion secret from Canadians. The minister wanted to tell Canadians that, by paying more for gas, groceries and home heating, they would be better off, misleading them by about $30 billion. I do not know how he looks anyone in the face.
When will the Prime Minister actually fire him?
Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how the Conservative Party of Canada and those members who campaigned to put in place a price on pollution can look anyone in the eyes. How can they look anyone in the eyes and say, “We are doing nothing to protect you against forest fires, we are doing nothing to protect you against hurricanes, and we are doing nothing to protect you against flooding”?
The Conservatives have no plan for the economy. They have no plan for climate change. They have no plan to work with communities to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government tried so hard to hide the truth that the carbon tax was driving up the cost of everything in Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer even had to call them out for blocking the release of their own economic impact report. They were literally forced to release the report.
Now we all know that each Canadian family is losing at least $1,800 a year, and there is no rebate for that. When will the environment minister finally resign from misleading Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House to actually go and talk to the PBO and the 300 economists who have said eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. They say it is those living on modest incomes who actually do the best.
I would say the collective amnesia that actually exists on the other side of the House is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Every one of those members, including the member opposite who asked the question, campaigned on putting in place a price on pollution. It is hypocrisy.
What is hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, is that, even while the Liberals' carbon tax was costing families more than $1,800 a year, and even while they knew over two million Canadian families per month were accessing food banks, the Liberals continued to try to convince Canadians that they were better off paying for a higher carbon tax. An $1,800 tax is a lot of money to many Canadians.
When will the Liberal government give Canadians back their money and fire the environment minister?
Mr. Speaker, the government is very proud of the environment minister, who put the first credible plan in history on the table to meet the Paris Agreement, the Paris Agreement that the Conservatives want to rip up.
It is no surprise, and the Conservatives got all of the data today, that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. The Conservatives are standing up for the more well off in our society. They want to move on from what they did two days ago, which was to stand up for 0.13% of Canadians, not the people who draw a paycheque, make an honest living, go to work every day and pay their taxes on time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I know all members are excited to be returning to their ridings for the weekend, but to move things along quickly, I will ask members to only take the floor when they are recognized by the Chair.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Bloc tax is costing our economy $30.5 billion a year. That adds up to nearly $2,000 per family in costs that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tried to conceal. The Minister of the Environment knew it, yet he deliberately hid the numbers from the Canadian public.
After deliberately hiding the facts, will the Minister of the Environment have the courage to stand up in front of all Canadians and resign for not telling them the whole story?
Mr. Speaker, that member from Quebec will never do what the other member from Quebec, the Minister of the Environment, has done for Canada by submitting a credible plan for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The minister has also complied, and will continue to comply, with the Paris Agreement, which the Conservatives want to take us out of.
It comes as no surprise that this member wants to pull us out of a plan that benefits eight out of 10 Canadians and, at the same time, is going to help us meet our climate change targets. That member should be ashamed.
Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right. I would never hide the $5-billion cost of a carbon tax from Quebeckers. That is exactly what the Minister of the Environment did in his own documents.
According to row 17, column AN, the carbon tax is costing Quebeckers $5 billion a year. The Bloc Québécois supports that tax. After trying to ridicule and muzzle the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was telling the truth, as we now know, will the Minister of the Environment resign?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will never hesitate to be there for Canadians, to defend their right to clean water, clean air and a clean environment, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada.
The extent of the Conservative Party's ignorance on this issue is beyond the pale. All the member has to do is turn around. If he were to turn around and talk to the member sitting right behind him, she can explain to him that Quebec has its own carbon pricing system, which was in place long before the federal system. What is more, several Conservative members have voted in favour of provincial carbon pricing. This is completely ridiculous.
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the CBSA's ArriveCAN app cost $60 million more than planned.
Well, the CBSA has found a way to do worse with its new app, the CBSA Assessment and Revenue Management, or CARM. This app is supposed to make it possible to register all imports at the border. So far, there has been $300 million in cost overruns and counting. CARM does not work. The CBSA had to postpone its rollout.
These two apps are money pits. How much more money will the CBSA be allowed to throw out the window before the minister gets angry and cleans house?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that we are aware of some of the industry-led concerns, and we are working to make sure that the application is fully functioning, but I want to reassure all Canadians that the app was created to modernize Canada's border system to ensure that tariffs are collected fairly and promptly. I should also note that the app was purchased and developed in 2010 under the Harper Conservatives, but it is something we are going to ensure is working properly.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that $300 million has been wasted and CARM does not even work.
All of Canada's imports will have to go through this app. Its rollout had to be delayed because the tests did not go well. The CBSA is still unable to provide us with its contingency plans in the event that problems complicate billions of dollars in transactions every day. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce signed a memorandum expressing its concern. Imagine. Even the Americans are concerned about the CBSA's incompetent management.
Does the minister find that embarrassing?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are going to ensure that the app is in good working order to ensure that Canada's border system and tariff collections are done in a modern, efficient and effective manner. Something that we have needed to do is hold consultations with industry leaders as well. This is where countries are going to ensure that our border services and our trade across borders is done in the most efficient way possible. We are continuing to work with CBSA to make sure that the processes are in place and that the app continues to work properly.
[Translation]
Canada Border Services Agency
Mr. Speaker, on the topic of the Canada Border Services Agency, Quebeckers were scandalized to learn that some big stores are destroying and throwing away enormous quantities of unsold clothing that could have been donated to charity instead.
What they do not know is that the federal agency encourages this practice. The obsolete or surplus goods program refunds the duties and excise taxes paid on destroyed goods, but not on donated goods. The Bloc Québécois wrote to the minister a month and a half ago calling his attention to this, but we have yet to get a response.
Will the government stop rewarding waste?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that is something that the minister has taken on seriously. He is working with finance to find the appropriate solution. We want to ensure that collection, and our customs and tariff system, are working properly, but the minister is well aware, and we are looking into the matter.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, the Prime Minister put a gag order on the Parliamentary Budget Officer to prevent the PBO from releasing the full report exposing the true cost of the NDP-Liberal carbon tax. We now know that the carbon tax will cost Canadians $30 billion in economic activity. That is over $1,800 for every family.
Why do they continue to muzzle the PBO? Is it because the report is so damning it should cost the minister his job? When will the Prime Minister fire his truth-evading minister?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we can tell that Canadians are proud of the environment minister because he is standing up for what is right for this country, while we have the climate deniers on the other side. They want to see the planet burn. We want to act for our children. We want to act for future generations.
It is eight families out of 10. We know it is tough to go beyond six for those guys. It is just six plus two. That gets to eight. Six plus four gets to 10. Eight out of 10 will get more money.
We will fight for Canadians at every step of the way. We will fight for climate change, and we will fight for our children.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's dirty $30-billion secret has been exposed. His carbon tax will cost Canadian families far more than they pay into it. That is money out of the pockets of people trying to feed their kids, heat their homes, pay their rent and fill up their cars.
Why are the Liberals so afraid of releasing the full report? Why is the budget officer muzzled? If the NDP-Liberals will not end the cover-up, tell the truth and release the full cost of the carbon tax, then the minister should resign. Why will he not get to it?
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the Conservatives want to move on from the fiasco of two days ago when they voted for 0.13% of taxpayers and set aside the 99.87% of taxpayers who are not affected by a capital gains change. They want to stand up for people who have made $250,000 on investments in a given year, and they will not stand up for the electricians, the farmers and the janitors, who earn a paycheque every week and do it honestly.
Mr. Speaker, a secret government report confirms what Canadians already know, which is that the carbon tax is costing Canadians more than they are getting back. The report says the carbon tax is costing Canadians $30 billion a year. That is almost $2,000 a household per year.
The government is not worth the cost. When will the environment minister resign?
Mr. Speaker, it looks like Conservatives want to change the channel. Yesterday, they were all about talking about capital gains. They were fighting for the rich guy and holding up plumbers and electricians, but not talking about waitresses or school bus drivers, when talking about how they are fighting for the little guy.
On this side, we know that Conservatives do not care about people who are pulling in a paycheque, but rather, they are focused on their ultrarich friends.
Labour
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the Minister of Labour was asked about supporting the bargaining rights of Teamsters rail workers, he boasted about the government's success rate in trampling on the workers' right to negotiating a fair deal. The Liberals will say that they support workers, but will then pull the rug out from under them when they try to negotiate.
Instead of forcing a pathway toward binding arbitration on the rail workers, will the Minister of Labour respect the collective bargaining rights of Teamsters Canada and support its call to stagger negotiations to avoid a rail shutdown?
Mr. Speaker, the government has had the backs of workers from the get-go. The first thing we did was reverse the most anti-union legislation ever created in the House of Commons, brought in by the Conservative government. We further went on to introduce replacement worker legislation, which I am pleased has passed.
Right now, the minister is absolutely correct. There are negotiations happening at the table with the mediators. We believe in our mediators, who have a 96% success rate. We are confident in collective bargaining. We know that the best deals are made at the table, and we encourage those conversations to continue.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, today the UN released its annual report on children in armed conflict. The report verifies that there are more cases of war crimes against children in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel than anywhere else in the world. It is an appalling and alarming confirmation of the grave violations taking place.
Children are dying and the Liberals are failing them. When, on what date, will the government finally impose sanctions on those responsible for the violence against children, including Netanyahu's war cabinet?
Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that the situation in Gaza is catastrophic. Too many children and too many women have died. That is why the violence must stop. That is why we need a ceasefire now. That is why hostages must be released. That is why civilians must be protected. That is why humanitarian aid needs to get into Gaza.
We need to make sure that both parties support the Biden proposal. The Prime Minister, and the G7 prime ministers and leaders are in Italy as we speak. I really hope we can bring peace back to the Middle East.
Labour
Mr. Speaker, Canada's border services employees deliver important services that ensure Canadians are safe, secure and have timely access to goods coming from other countries. It is no secret that Canada's public servants have seen previous Conservative governments cut their jobs and cut services instead of giving them the respect they deserve by reaching deals at the table that are fair for them and reasonable for Canadian taxpayers.
Could the President of the Treasury Board share an update on her work to ensure a fair deal is made with our border services officers to maintain Canada's border security while ensuring respect for the work of our public servants?
Mr. Speaker, this week showed that the best deals are reached at the table and that the collective bargaining process works. The Canada Border Services Agency employees keep our country safe every single day, and I am pleased to announce in the House that a tentative agreement has been reached that is fair for Canadian taxpayers and reasonable for public servants.
On this side of the House, we will always stand up for public service employees, and we thank them for their work every single day in protecting our country.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, he has developed an extreme obsession with taxing farmers. First it was the carbon tax; now it is the capital gains tax increase that means that a 74-year-old farmer back home who has worked his whole life will struggle to pay off his debts and enjoy his retirement.
It also makes things even harder for the next generation of farm families. Without the family farm, big multinational conglomerates will take over. How is that fair for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader does not stand with workers, and he certainly does not stand with Canada's farmers. It is shameful that the leader of the Conservatives hides behind farmers and workers to justify his opposition to our plan for tax fairness.
We are in fact increasing the capital gains sheltering for farmers by boosting the lifetime exemption for qualified farming properties to $1.25 million per owner, and when combined with the $250,000 threshold, farmers are going to be better off.
We are standing up, on this side of the House, for Canada's agriculture. The Conservatives are standing up for the 0.13%.
Mr. Speaker, farmers are supposed to feed families, not the Prime Minister's extreme obsessions. The new tax is devastating for everyone, from farm to table.
Canada's “Food Professor” said yesterday that “to suggest that this change only affects a minimal number of Canadians...is misleading. I think it actually affects a lot of businesses, including in the agri-food sector, and I would start with farmers”.
We need to keep family farms alive, but now they are under attack by the Liberals. How is that fair, and how can the ag minister sit quietly and let this happen?
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not seen a hay baler or the top of a combine in his life.
What we have done over here is made things better for farmers by increasing the lifetime exemption and extending new provisions to farmers to ensure that capital gains do not affect them. Farmers will, in fact, be better off under this plan for tax fairness, just like waitresses, just like airline stewardesses, just like janitors, just like electricians, just like plumbers and just like 99.87% of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the government and its Bloc Québécois partners have found a new way to undermine our agricultural industry: The day before yesterday, they voted to increase taxes on capital gains.
While one in five families cannot even pay off its debts, this punitive tax measure will make it even harder to sell a farm or transfer it to a family member. Farmers were not even consulted.
How does this measure make things fairer?
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not know how to milk a cow or how to help farmers.
In our plan, we put new limits in place to help farmers. The exemption for farmers was extended. We know that farm succession is a major issue in Canada.
I encourage the member to do his homework, because things are going better for farmers thanks to the Liberal plan.
Mr. Speaker, here we have yet more proof that the government is truly out of touch. I have been milking cows for 40 years.
I can confirm that, in committee, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food admitted that neither he nor his department were consulted about this new tax, which is disastrous for family farms. I have also heard from many owners of small and medium-sized businesses in my riding over the past few weeks. For example, this change will hit Louis from Saint‑Joseph hard when he transfers his business to his daughter. The Liberals and the Bloc Québécois are not worth the cost.
Again, I ask, how is all of this fair?
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians understand, especially farmers in Quebec, is fairness.
The latest federal budget we tabled was about fairness for every generation. It will enable us to invest in the next generation, in going concerns, and in our seniors. Surprise, surprise, the Conservatives voted against tax fairness.
I know farmers have big hearts. I know farmers are thinking about future generations. I know farmers want Canada to keep getting better.
That is exactly what we are doing.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, to return to the matter of Chalk River and the nuclear waste landfill site on the banks of the Ottawa River.
In late March, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories admitted to dumping toxic waters into the river.
Mr. Speaker, there is chatter coming from both sides of the House. I would ask for silence.
Indeed, tempers are running very hot today. I ask members who wish to have conversations to please do so outside the chamber.
I invite the hon. member for Repentigny to begin her question again.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Returning to the matter of Chalk River and the nuclear waste landfill site on the banks of the Ottawa River.
In late March, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, also called CNL, admitted to dumping toxic waters into the river. The lethality of these waters is already acute, which means that, within four days, they kill half of the fish that swim in them.
We know that many experts have warned about the risks of contamination caused by radioactive substances. Three months later, despite our questions, neither CNL nor the Department of the Environment has revealed which contaminants were involved.
Were they radioactive, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, CNL has confirmed that the waste water was unrelated to radioactive contaminants and poses no threat to the public.
We continue working to ensure that the laboratories comply with the regulations.
The waters were certainly not radioactive.
Mr. Speaker, the Kebaowek First Nation, part of the Anishnabeg Nation, is a community in my riding that has made a number of demands to which the Bloc Québécois and 140 municipalities have added their voices. It is calling for a thorough investigation and compliance measures in consultation with indigenous peoples, which was not done in the Chalk River case. It is also calling for transparency.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories knew as early as February that they were dumping toxic water, but did not report it until the end of March.
How can the federal government trust a laboratory that has problems with contaminated water and transparency to manage a nuclear waste dump on the Ottawa River, which flows right here beneath Parliament Hill?
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has confirmed that the waste water is not linked to radioactive contaminants and poses no threat to the public.
CNL and government experts continue to monitor the Ottawa River. They are reporting that there is no obvious damage to the environment.
The health and safety of the environment and the public is our top priority.
[English]
Health
Mr. Speaker, over six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. According to the Commonwealth Fund, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, the number of Canadians without access to a regular care provider has doubled. What is the government's solution to the doctor shortage? It is to tax them out of the country. The health-care-killing tax on health care providers will force them to practise elsewhere, making the doctor shortage crisis even worse. How is that fair?
How many communities will go without doctors because doctors are leaving Canada due to the Prime Minister's new tax?
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the only time the Conservatives have asked in the House about health care or a shortage of doctors is when there has been a proposal to create a more fair tax system that asked the 0.13% of people to pay a bit more. Suddenly now, the Conservatives are interested in health care.
What is not going to help? Conservative cuts will not help. The $200 billion that Liberals have invested, with 26 health agreements, in every province and every territory, is making sure we see progress every day in our health system, from dental care to pharmacare and primary care.
What is going to stop that dead in its tracks are the cuts the Conservatives want to bring. Liberals are here to make sure they do not get to do it.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are scrambling, and their facts do not add up. Kneecapping our health care providers to pay for the government's credit card bill is bad fiscal policy and it is bad health care policy. The key to a sound, robust health care system is preventative medicine, ensuring that Canadians get timely access to the health care they need. This not only saves lives but also saves government money. Increasing the tax burden on doctors who carry out this work will only force doctors out of the country.
When will the pompous Prime Minister finally listen to the thousands of people on wait-lists?
The hon. member is a well-respected member of the House. I am just going to ask her very quickly to withdraw that one word, because it does refer to an individual member.
Mr. Speaker, when someone is out of arguments, they turn to insults. We are asking the 0.13% of people to pay a bit more so that we can have fairness and equity in our tax system, making sure a nurse does not pay a higher marginal rate of tax than a millionaire, which is fundamentally unfair.
Do members know what will kneecap our health care system? There have been 200,000 seniors in just six weeks who have accessed dental care, and the Conservatives want to take that away. Pharmacare is making sure that diabetes patients get the medicine they need; the Conservatives want to cut that. That will kneecap our health care system. We will not allow that to happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Minister of Health does not realize that after nine years, there is a major, historic crisis caused by the lack of family doctors in Canada.
Increasing the capital gains tax will have an impact on the economy and the quality of life of Canadians. In the midst of this challenging economic chaos they have created, the Liberals decide to tax capital gains even more. Supposedly, they want to make the rich pay. This is a tax cover-up and it will have a major impact. As a result of the exodus, the list of Canadians without a doctor will grow, not shrink. In Quebec, there are already 2.3 million people without a family doctor.
What does the Minister of Health say in response—
Mr. Speaker, I can say clearly that, in a fairer and more equitable system, a nurse does not pay a higher rate of tax than someone with millions of dollars. It just makes sense.
It is absolutely undeniable that our health care system is threatened by fewer investments, which are essential to improving the quality of health care. We are absolutely going to protect our health care system. That is our goal.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of chronic underfunding by the Conservatives, our government has made historic investments in housing and infrastructure for communities from coast to coast to coast.
Earlier this week, our government concluded a $2.8-billion agreement with Quebec that will help the municipalities revitalize critical infrastructure and support housing projects through the Canada community-building fund.
Can the minister explain how this funding will help communities in Quebec to build more housing more quickly?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who understands how critical it is to invest in our community infrastructure and in housing for Quebeckers and Canadians across the country.
The recent agreement with Quebec will guarantee $2.8 billion over the next five years, including $535 million this year to help build housing and to build it more quickly.
While the opposition leader spends his time finding excuses for opposing tax fairness, we will continue to focus on delivering help so that all Canadians and their families can get ahead.
We have a plan to help build housing in Quebec. The Conservatives have a plan to insult local leaders, create conflicts and not build any housing.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that Canadian rents are at an all-time high, averaging $2,200 a month, and it is only going to get worse. The Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations says the new Liberal capital gains tax will discourage construction of new rental homes. The NDP-Liberal government is crushing the prospect of bringing new rental units into our communities. What part of that says “generational fairness”?
Mr. Speaker, we say that the Conservatives do not care, and here is proof. The tax change would allow for more revenue to be directed to child care, pharmacare, dental care and measures to address the housing crisis. In fact, I direct the new member, and he is a new member, to look at the Conservatives' housing plan, which actually would tax home builders.
Therefore, today, when the member raises concerns about home building and taxation, it is the Conservatives' plan that is the problem. We have a plan. We are going to put in place that plan. We are going to solve the housing crisis.
Mr. Speaker, the president of the real estate company RE/MAX agrees that the Liberals' spin on their new tax hikes is bogus. I would like to quote him, if I might. He said, “The federal government has been vocal about this...only targeting the wealthiest of the wealthy...it's just not true.” He went on, “I think that it's going to penalize more average Canadians than were intended.”
My question is very simple. When will the government take the housing crisis seriously and stop letting down an entire generation of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the government has put in place a policy to lift GST off the construction of purpose-built rentals. The Conservatives want to maintain GST on the construction of purpose-built rentals; they will not get more apartments built that way, which is something that was verified at the House of Commons committee responsible for housing just a few days ago when the Conservatives raised this point.
Furthermore, if the member wants to talk about quotes, he can go back to the proceedings of the federal finance committee meeting a few months ago, when the Conservatives' housing plan was studied by the Department of Finance, showing that the Conservatives' plan would lead to fewer homes being built.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis, which is very much caused by Liberal incompetence, is wreaking havoc across the country, and the Liberal-Bloc coalition believes that taxing honest home builders will fix the situation. However, the simple fact is that taxing builders means fewer new homes and higher housing prices. It is unfair and counterproductive.
How does it make sense to increase taxes on housing if we want to build more houses?
Mr. Speaker, I am going to teach the member a little lesson, since he has likely not read the Conservative Party's rental housing plan. His party's proposal, believe it or not, is to maintain the GST on rental housing construction projects. That is unbelievable.
When I talk to people in my community and those who build housing, they tell me this is what makes the difference between a profitable project and an unprofitable one. The Conservatives want to bring the GST back for rental housing.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative leader attacks B.C. mayors, we are working with them to build more housing faster. The housing accelerator fund is investing in the most ambitious places, to solve the housing crisis and deliver fairness for every generation. This includes in my community, where we are investing over $25 million to help the City of Coquitlam fast-track thousands of new homes, including purpose-built rentals. Can the Minister of Energy update us on these investments to get more homes built in his community and mine?
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his advocacy and focus on getting more homes built faster. The housing accelerator fund is indeed unlocking ambitious action on solving the housing crisis, including in my riding of North Vancouver, where a recent $18-million investment will spur the construction of thousands of homes, very much including renters. Across Canada and B.C., hundreds of thousands of new homes are being fast-tracked thanks to investments like these. While the Conservative leader is vowing to rip up these vital agreements, we are working on building homes for the middle class.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, the spotted owl is one of Canada's most endangered species, with only one wild-born owl left in the country, on the Spuzzum First Nation territory, near Hope, B.C.
The Minister of Environment has the power to protect this species under the Species at Risk Act, but he took so long to make a recommendation on that action that a federal judge found he broke the law.
Why did the Liberals delay protecting this endangered species and then refuse to take action?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy for environmental and climate change issues. I would like to remind him that just a few months ago, we signed an historic agreement with all of the B.C. first nations, the Government of B.C. and the federal government: $1 billion for nature protection to help the province achieve the goals we have in Canada to protect at least 30% of our lands and water. We will continue working with our partners, whether they be first nations or the Government of B.C., to ensure we can protect more species and more habitat.
Employment
Mr. Speaker, reports confirm what everyone knows but the out of touch government and the 23 missing in action Toronto MPs seem to have missed, which is that Torontonians are struggling. The Liberals have a new buzzword to gloss over their mismanagement, and it is “fairness”.
There is nothing fair in having more unemployed in Toronto than in all of Quebec. Excluding the pandemic, unemployment is the highest since 2015, when the architects of incompetence stumbled into power. Over 1.26 million Canadians have missed a mortgage or credit card payment in the first quarter of 2024.
When the banks call, do Liberals advise Canadians to just say, “Boo-hoo. Get over it”?
Mr. Speaker, this government has done more to support our local economies than any government I have ever seen in Canadian history. We are stimulating jobs and increasing productivity. We have made major investments in the research ecosystem within our economy, which is promoting innovation and creating more jobs for a sustainable future. I could not be more proud of this government. I know the member over there is training to become a member of the Conservative Party. I just hope the leader of the official opposition will finally accept him.
[Translation]
Paul Arcand
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the House:
(a) recognize Paul Arcand's exceptional career at the helm of the morning show "Puisqu'il faut se lever";
(b) recognize his rigorous work and his contribution to quality information accessible to all; and
(c) thank him for his many years of service.
[English]
Republic of Cyprus
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, given that
(i) 50 years ago, the Republic of Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in July and August 1974, resulting in the illegal occupation of 36% of Cyprus and the displacement of more than 150,000 Cypriots,
(ii) Canada has condemned the invasion, as has the world community, including the United Nations through resolution 360 of the UN Security Council,
(iii) Canada played a key role as a peacekeeper in Cyprus between 1964 and 1993,
the House
(a) pay tribute to the 33,000 Canadian soldiers who put their lives on the line and honour the memory of the 28 Canadian soldiers who died during the deployment including during the invasion; and
(b) reiterate its condemnation of the invasion of Cyprus and call on all parties to respect international law, end the illegal occupation and act to ensure the reunification of the Republic of Cyprus.
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
I regret to inform the hon. member from Rivière-du-Nord that I am already hearing members saying no.
Again, this raises a point that I repeat quite often. It is very important for members to hold discussions to obtain consent from all the parties to move a motion. That way the House's time will be used more effectively.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Countering Foreign Interference Act
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference, be read the third time and passed.
It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, June 12, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-70.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 814)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Beech
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lantsman
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Majumdar
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Total: -- 319
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Members
BlairGallant
Total: -- 2
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, the penultimate Thursday question.
I am just wondering if the government House leader could use this occasion to inform the House as to what may be the business for the rest of this week and into next week.
We heard some very helpful suggestions this week. If the government is telling the truth about its middle-class, working Canadian tax hike on the change to the capital gains inclusion rate, will it, next week, immediately table legislation to protect the bottom 99.87% of Canadians, who it claims will not be affected by this tax?
We would like the Liberals to enshrine that in law and to put the legislation where their rhetoric is. We would immediately fast-track that legislation once they do that. If they do not want to do it by income bracket and protect the 99.87% of Canadians, they could do it by profession. They could exempt plumbers, electricians, carpenters, farmers and fishermen, any one of the trades that they mentioned this week.
Will the Liberal government take us up on our challenge and enshrine into law that protection from this capital gains tax hike? What other legislation will it bring forward next week?
Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought, for once, we were going to get away without a preamble, but we had a lot of amble there, a lot of post-amble.
I can assure my hon. friend that the law that is coming this fall would protect every single Canadian who draws their income from a paycheque, and 0.13% of Canadians would pay a modest amount of additional tax on capital gains over a quarter of a million dollars garnered in a single year.
Tax fairness not only will be written into the law, but also will continue to be the thing we talk about in the House.
[Translation]
Tomorrow, we will complete the report stage study of Bill C-40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act, which is also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.
I would like to request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.
[English]
Our priorities next week will be to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, and second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. We will also give priority to other important bills, namely third reading of the aforementioned Bill C-40 and report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.
Finally, there have been discussions amongst the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
[Translation]
That the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Christine Ivory as Parliamentary Librarian, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), be deemed adopted.
All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.
House of Commons
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing
[Business of Supply]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Uxbridge.
[Translation]
I would like to start by setting the record straight. Pollution pricing is a key tool for fighting climate change and supporting Canadians.
[English]
Canadians know climate change is a real and serious threat to all of us. They have asked governments across the country to take action and to do our part to reduce the carbon pollution that is causing climate change. They also recognize that climate action needs to work with the economy, both to keep life affordable and to support the development of clean technologies here at home and to export around the globe.
Canada, alongside other international partners, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, the Republic of Korea and many others, recognizes carbon pricing is a powerful tool to achieve all these goals. The World Bank confirmed that there are now 75 carbon pricing instruments in place worldwide at the national and subnational levels.
This is not surprising. As economists and experts keep telling us, carbon pricing is the lowest cost and most effective tool to reduce carbon pollution. A price on pollution sends a signal across the economy. Each individual and business integrates that signal into their day-to-day decisions, finding ways to pollute less, so they can save money. The choice of when and how to act is left up to them. That is what makes carbon pricing so powerful.
[Translation]
Canada's approach to pricing pollution is flexible. Provinces and territories can adopt their own system if it meets minimum national standards. It was set up that way in recognition of the fact that Quebec and British Columba have had their own mechanism for over a decade. In provinces and territories that do not have a price on pollution, the federal system applies.
The federal pollution pricing system is revenue neutral. All revenue is returned to the provinces and territories where it was collected. In provinces where pollution pricing applies, most of the revenue is returned to Canadians via the carbon rebate four times a year. For eight out of 10 households in Canada, the rebate is more than the carbon tax they pay.
[English]
This rebate is designed to benefit lower- and middle-income families the most. The exact payment depends on the number of people in the household and which province they live in. A family of four in Alberta, for example, will receive a Canada carbon rebate of $1,800 this year, and more if they live in a rural community. The price signal on carbon pollution still works even though money goes back to households because of how the Canada carbon rebate is designed. Spending more on fossil fuels does not give someone a larger rebate. Households get their Canada carbon rebates regardless of how many cars they have, how they heat their home and how they get to work.
[Translation]
If people make an effort to use less fossil fuel by carpooling, for example, driving an electric vehicle or installing a heat pump in their home, every dollar saved goes back into their pockets. They still get the incentive. People who do not see the short-term importance of transitioning to clean energy or using less fossil fuel are still protected from the effects of the cost of living because the climate action incentive payment gives back more to most Canadian families than they pay.
[English]
Our approach to pollution pricing is working. Estimates show that pollution pricing contributes roughly one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved by Canada's emissions reduction plan in 2030.
[Translation]
Putting a price on pollution is the simplest and most effective way to fight climate change. It encourages entrepreneurs to find innovative solutions, invest in clean technologies and transition to renewable energy. Clean energy and low-emission technologies are among the greatest opportunities of our time.
Canada's greenhouse gas offset credit system is also an important part of our pollution pricing mechanism, providing economic opportunities for municipalities, indigenous communities, farmers and project proponents. This encourages them to undertake innovative projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs and participate in the carbon credit market.
[English]
While other tools like regulations and incentives have an important role to play in Canada's climate plan, without carbon pricing, any climate plan will be more expensive and will miss opportunities for innovation. A price on carbon pollution is cheaper than other options, supports affordability and creates new markets for the new technologies we need.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the worst growth of income than any Prime Minister since the Great Depression in the 1930s under the Liberal-NDP coalition. Of the 40 advanced countries in the OECD, Canada is projected to have the worst growth for the next three decades.
Does the member not recognize that their policies, their tax policies and their governance is destroying our nation?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true.
It is entertaining to watch the official opposition do everything in its power to undermine the policies we are putting in place, which are actually allowing us to achieve our objectives. With all the measures we have taken and implemented since 2015, we are firmly on track to achieve a one-third reduction in Canada's emissions by 2030. Without carbon pricing, we would be facing an additional 24 million tonnes of emissions. That amounts to taking seven million cars off the road. Carbon pricing works.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we just heard today about how much the cost of the carbon tax would be to our economy. We are looking at a $30-billion hit to our economy, costing over $1,800 per Canadian family every year. However, the only reason we have this information out is because of the pressure from the Conservatives in this place. This document that we were told really did not exist we have now seen was true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was telling the truth.
I wonder if the member could comment on this new revelation and on whether she knew of this information, as a Liberal MP, before it was released today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is that we will always be there for Canadians and Quebeckers. We will ensure that they have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Thanks to our price on pollution, eight out of 10 families in Canada are getting more money back than they spend.
Once again, I think it is a good system, one that is also recognized across the world.
[English]
Uqaqtittiji, if the Liberals are so confident in their climate policy, why will they not be transparent and share their economic analysis with Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we can be confident because we are seeing results. We are here to fight climate change, unlike the official opposition, which has no plan.
We are here to protect the environment and to fight climate change. Climate change is becoming increasingly costly. We really need to take action. That is what we have been doing since we have been in office.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is being stated in the House today that somehow families are worse off, according to the Conservatives. However, the facts are the facts, and eight out of 10 families are actually better off with carbon pricing.
The Conservatives are focused on cuts, while we are focused on investments in Canadians. Could she speak about how that will help Canadians across the country?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the opposition party is there to propose cuts. This is a critical time in the fight against climate change.
I think that the measures we are implementing year after year show Quebeckers and Canadians that this important issue is a priority for us. We are helping municipalities, indigenous communities and developers to undertake innovative projects to make the energy transition and turn to clean and renewable energy.
We have no choice. This is what we have to do.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to this important issue dealing with climate change and a price on pollution. It is a shame, however, that the Conservatives, once again, use an opposition day to promote their ideology. They work hard every day in the House to simply promote a set of opinions that they purport to be facts.
The motion does give us an opportunity to speak about something that at I think is on the minds a lot of Canadians, and that is climate change and the impacts of that.
While the Conservatives have no plan to deal with climate change, we have been steadfast and focused on ensuring that future generations have a planet and that with the impacts of the rapidly changing climate, our communities are going to be resilient. Investments need to be made, and all orders of government have a role to play in dealing with the impacts of climate change.
It is also crucial that we reiterate this. The government's carbon pricing plan is one of the most effective ways to implement change, but it also puts more money into the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families. I want to speak to some facts to ensure that Canadians hear the numbers that we are dealing with. The average Canadian family in Alberta is $723 ahead with the price on pollution. In Ontario, my home province, a family is $255 ahead with the rebate.
The Conservatives want to take that rebate away. However, what they do not address is that climate change is real and that the impacts and the costs that Canadians face as a result do not go away. This rebate allows for 100% of the revenues collected in the jurisdiction to go back to that same jurisdiction. It allows Canadians to invest in some greener choices, if possible, but it also allows them to offset some of the costs associated with climate change and the impacts that we face.
I spent nearly a decade in municipal politics before running to serve my community of Pickering—Uxbridge in this place. One of the things we dealt with the most at the municipal level was infrastructure and how we could put infrastructure in place that was resilient and adaptable to the changing climate and storms. We used to refer to “hundred-year storms”, which were happening more and more.
Our plan also supports municipalities that need help to ensure their communities truly are resilient and can adapt to what we see more often. We saw catastrophic wildfires in the country. We have seen flooding. In my community of Uxbridge, we had a horrible tornado that damaged businesses, infrastructure, other important community spaces and the homes of individuals.
The cost of inaction is far greater than any proposal to put a price on pollution, but that is something the Conservatives feel everybody should deal with on their own. They do not think the federal government has a role to play in ensuring that communities are resilient. The federal government is going to be there for individuals who are impacted.
The irony in all of this is that the Conservatives know that Canadians care deeply about climate change and the impacts on our planet. In the last election, the Conservatives actually ran on a price on pollution. However, their plan reminded me a lot of going to an arcade, buying tickets and trading them in for a prize. I think there was a bike on the list, gift cards and things like that.
What Canadians can really use to help deal with affordability issues and resiliency in their own homes in dealing with climate change is cash, not a gift card for a bike or Tim Hortons. That is exactly what Conservatives ran on, because they realized that not dealing with climate change was not politically viable.
If we fast-forward to the current leader, they want Canadians to forget that climate change is real, that the impacts are real, that the financial costs are real and that our government's plan is not only reducing emissions but also ensuring there is more money in the pockets of Canadians, like I said, in eight out of 10 families. That is precisely what Conservatives do not want to talk about. They want Canadians to think that this is some sort of ideology and tax policy, when it is ensuring Canada's future. It is ensuring affordability for Canadians, and it is ensuring that we are reducing emissions in a way that allows Canadians to move forward in that work together. It is about fairness. It is about ensuring that our communities are resilient. It is about supporting each other as we experience more severe weather events right across this country. It is about making sure there is more money in the pockets of Canadians right across this country.
Conservatives do not have a plan to deal with the environment, so they are trying to distract Canadians from the reality. I think they are going to be in for yet another surprise when they realize that Canadians care deeply about this issue. They care deeply about the environment and want Canada to be a leader. If we want to talk about the economy, countries around the world, in trade and doing business with other countries, are going to expect each country to have a very real plan to deal with climate and reduce carbon emissions. Canada will lag behind if we do not address the very real issues of the world and if we do not do it in an economically responsible way.
It is a shame that this motion was brought forward today. It would be incredibly important for this House and Parliament to constantly debate the very real issues of climate change. Unfortunately, Conservatives want to pretend it does not exist. In the last speech, we heard about the fact that this plan will have a one-third reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, the equivalent of seven million more cars off the roads. These are very real results.
We are making our communities resilient, focusing on affordability issues for all Canadians and making sure that it is not free to pollute anymore. Canadians will be watching. They will see that if anyone who runs for office and wants to hold the highest position in this country is not serious about climate change, they are not serious about Canada's future and they are certainly not serious about Canada's economy.