OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 293 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, March 21, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 21, 2024 DEBATES No. 293 No. 293 N o 293 Volume 151 293 21 03 2024 2024/03/21 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

[ Translation ] National Defence Act

Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Bill C‑66. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-66,

An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

[ English ] Petitions Democratic Reform

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand here and present three e-petitions, all coordinated by a member of my riding, Mr. Brian Kerr. These three e-petitions, e-4605, e-3827 and e-4274, total over 45,000 signatures, which Brian has spearheaded among himself and others. The petitioners call on the federal government to look at a form of recall election, which is not present here in Canada.

Firearms

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today. The first petition comes from Canadians across the country who are concerned about Bill C-21 . The bill targets law-abiding firearms owners. The petitioners state that hunting and firearm ownership play an important role in Canadian society and history. They are concerned about the government's intent to ban several hunting rifles and shotguns, including bolt-action rifles. The petitioners ask the government to leave their guns alone and, to protect property rights of Canadian hunters, to vote against Bill C-21 .

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The interpreter has told us that he cannot do his job because of static.

[ English ]

The Speaker :

I would ask the member to not shake his papers and see if that works. Let us start again with the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

Mr. Arnold Viersen :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition today comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners. The petitioners recognize the importance of owning firearms, but they are concerned about the impacts to hearing loss caused by the damaging noise level of firearms and the need for noise reduction. The petitioners acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally recognized health and safety devices that are criminally prohibited here in Canada.

Moreover, the majority of G7 countries recognize the health and safety benefits of sound moderators, including their use for hunting, sport shooting and reducing noise pollution. In many countries in the EU, for example, these things are actually mandated rather than criminalized. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to allow firearms owners the option to legally purchase and use sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.

Pornography

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the folks who are showing up in pornographic material. The petitioners want the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-270 , the stopping internet sexual exploitation act, which will be up for debate tomorrow.

Controlling and Coercive Conduct

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table petition e-4660, initiated by the remarkable women at the Canadian Center for Women's Empowerment. The petitioners are calling for November 26 to be named as “national economic abuse awareness day”. The petitioners note that economic abuse is a pervasive but often overlooked form of abuse that impacts 95% of women who face intimate partner violence, but it can also happen alone. The petitioners note that economic abuse undermines women's financial independence and amplifies structural barriers, especially for marginalized, gender-diverse and vulnerable communities.

The petitioners call for funding, collection of disaggregated data and a national day to raise awareness about economic abuse.

Food Security

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. One is on behalf of members of the Queen's University community and residents of Kingston and the Islands, who are calling upon the Minister of Finance , the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to prioritize funding for a national school food program through budget 2024 for implementation of schools by the fall of 2024. They indicate that Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program and highlight the importance of having one.

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I have comes from Canadians who are concerned about the environmental panel on climate change's report, which has warned us repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather. The residents of Kingston and the Islands who signed this petition call upon the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the targets Canada has set to achieve by 2030.

(1010) Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, in the final petition I have today, actually, the majority of signatories are from a riding to the north of mine, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. These are farmers, beef farmers in particular, who are concerned about the fact that the abattoir at Joyceville federal institution has been closed for almost two years now. These beef farmers have indicated that they have been waiting six to nine months and, in many cases, up to a year to have their cattle processed at provincial facilities. The abattoir located at Joyceville Institution is on Highway 15 in Ontario. As I indicated, it closed in September 2022.

The petitioners have indicated the negative impacts that the closure has had, both economically and to businesses and restaurants that rely on their products. Therefore, they are calling on the Government of Canada to explore all options to ensure that the abattoir located at Joyceville Institution is reopened to address the issues noted.

Firearms

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I rise to present a petition that calls out the Liberals' nonsensical attempt to ban hunting and sport shooting firearms. The citizens indicate that the government has attempted to ban and seize the hunting rifles and shotguns of millions of law-abiding Canadians, saying further that the targeting of farmers and hunters does not fight crime and that the government has failed those who participate in the Canadian tradition of sport shooting.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport shooting firearms. I sure know that common-sense Conservative Ellis Ross would love to join the House of Commons to help axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

First Responders Tax Credit

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and present a petition on behalf of Canadians who have signed it, across partisan lines, to bring awareness to the fact that 71% of firefighters in Canada are volunteers, many of which are in Battle River—Crowfoot. These petitioners, in particular, highlight a number of aspects of the great work that our volunteer departments do in keeping our communities safe.

These folks are calling on the Government of Canada to increase the tax credit amount for volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer services from $3,000 to $10,000, acknowledging the hard work that so many of these women and men do across our country, specifically in rural and remote areas. It is an honour to table this petition today.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Bilingual Documents in the House of Commons Privilege

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to the question of privilege that the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier raised yesterday. Monday, at the very end of the debate on the NDP opposition motion, the government introduced an amendment in English only, and the House had to debate it without any French translation for the francophone members.

The Bloc Québécois acted responsibly just after the government introduced the amendment and had the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert inform the Speaker that it was impossible for the Bloc Québécois to continue the debate or to take a stance because the government's amendment was not available in French. In the end, members got access to the French version about 40 minutes later. We are of the opinion that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, and I am asking you to rule accordingly and send the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The Speaker :

I thank the member for La Prairie for his comments. The hon. Leader of the Opposition on the same question of privilege.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the Bloc Québécois is complaining now, because they allowed the vote to happen and voted in favour of a unilingual English motion. If the Bloc Québécois is actually serious about its desire to protect the French language, then it should have said—

The Speaker :

I think this is a matter of debate, not a matter of privilege. However, I greatly appreciate the interventions. As I was saying to the member for La Prairie , I appreciate these comments, and the Chair will take them into consideration when looking into the matter. I hope to make a ruling as soon as possible.

Government Orders Business of Supply

(1015) [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Election

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

Motion moved:

That the House declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and his costly government for increasing the carbon tax 23% on April 1, as part of his plan to quadruple the tax while Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves, and call for the House to be dissolved so Canadians can vote in a carbon tax election.

The Speaker :

Today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 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.

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Thornhill . Today, as members, we will decide whether we will stand with Canadians, including Quebeckers, or with the Prime Minister , who punishes people with taxes, debts and inflation. Today is a big moment. The Bloc Québécois will decide which team they are on. Do they stand with the workers and families of Quebec or with the Prime Minister? The Bloc Québécois has already supported all of this Prime Minister’s discretionary spending by voting for the estimates. These are not expenditures for health, transfers to the provinces or seniors.

These are expenditures for bureaucracy and all the subcontractors, including the arrive scammers. The Bloc Québécois voted for all expenditures, for the $21 billion paid to subcontractors. The Bloc voted for all the offender release policies. They supported the Prime Minister’s attempt to ban hunting rifles for people in the regions. They supported all the centralizing housing policies, which doubled the cost of housing, including rents in Quebec. Now, after getting all worked up time and time again complaining about Liberal government policies, they will be able to decide whether they will fire this government.

This is a government that has destroyed our immigration system, doubled the cost of housing and released criminals, which led to an increase in auto thefts, among other things. This government caused a drug and homelessness crisis that has forced tens of thousands of Quebeckers to use food banks. We will see if the Bloc Québécois will support this government. I think they will. I think that, when the Bloc Québécois is here, in Ottawa, it supports the centralizers. The Bloc always votes with the Liberals. However, when Bloc members are in their riding, they say exactly the opposite.

This is because there is a symbiotic relationship between the Bloc Québécois and the centralist Liberals. The two agree on all ideological issues. Both are led by the woke lefties of the Plateau Mont-Royal, who want to tax Canadians, put them in debt and free criminals while banning hunting rifles. Now the Bloc Québécois says it wants to support a tax hike of 17¢ a litre on gas and diesel. In addition, it supports the Minister of Environment and Climate Change , who wants to shut down the forestry sector and kill the jobs of all the workers who depend on wood to put food on the table.

Fortunately, we Conservatives are going to hold the government of this Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost, to account. This government is not worth the cost, the corruption or the crime. It is a government that must be defeated. That is why we are bringing a motion of non-confidence to the House of Commons. We need a common-sense Conservative government that will reduce taxes and stop crime. Only the Conservative Party will do that. Quebeckers who want to defeat this costly and extremist government have only one choice, and that is the Conservative Party.

It is important to know that voting for the Bloc Québécois means voting for the Liberals, because they are much the same. They agree on all issues, except the location of the country’s capital. Aside from that, they agree on all issues.

If people really want change, change based on common sense that will allow them to keep more of their paycheques, that will make work pay again, that will lead to safer streets and that will respect the regions, including places where people hunt and drive trucks, they should keep in mind that only the common-sense Conservative Party can achieve that. (1020) [ English ] After eight years, it is clear that the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption, but never would we have imagined how bad things would get. Today, I look at the newspaper headlines.

Even the media is noticing how bad things are. A headline in the National Post: “Secret RCMP report warns Canadians may revolt once they realize how broke they are”. The RCMP has produced a report saying that Canadians are so poor, desperate and miserable that it may lead to political instability and other turbulence that one could not even have imagined would occur in a first world country eight years ago. I now turn my attention to The Globe and Mail. Remember, this is the same Globe and Mail that criticized me for using the term “gatekeeper” to describe how homes could not get build.

Here is its headline today: “Home ownership is turning into a gated community that renters cannot join”. Years after saying that it was very dangerous for us to talk about gatekeepers, The Globe and Mail has now awakened to the fact that the Prime Minister , in eight years, has turned home ownership into a gated community, shutting people outside of the gates. A small, privileged group gets richer and richer as a growing mass of working-class youth and seniors renting apartments can no longer afford any place to live. I used to warn that there were 35-year-olds living in their parents' basements.

That is now the least of our concerns. We are now worried that those 35-year-olds and their parents might not be able to make their mortgage payments at all. Defaults are rising rapidly. We have 35 homeless encampments in Halifax and have similar encampments now in every major centre in Canada. We have two million people lined up at food banks in scenes that are reminiscent of the Great Depression, and 35% of charities now say that they are turning people away because they no longer have the resources. Food bank shelves are emptying out.

Then, there are people who are eating out of garbage cans, with 8,000 people now having joined something called a “dumpster diving network”, a Facebook group where they share tips on how they can climb into a garbage can and can pull a meal out because there is nothing they can afford at the grocery store and nothing left at the food banks. This year, groceries are going to cost $700 more than they did last year for the average family. In the middle of all this, what do the NDP and the Prime Minister choose?

They choose to raise taxes on food and fuel, on heat and homes, and to raise taxes on all the materials to build homes, which will raise taxes on all those who buy the homes. They choose to raise taxes on heating those homes, to raise taxes on the gas and diesel needed to get to work to earn paycheques to make payments on those homes and to raise taxes on the farmers who make the food, on the truckers who ship the food, on the grocers who sell the food and, therefore, on all those who buy the food, as if the desperation was not bad enough.

This is in light of all the evidence that has come out that, now, 60% of Canadians are paying more in carbon tax than they are getting back in rebates, a fact that I have read into the record time and time again, a fact that the Prime Minister continues to attempt to hide from, a fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer just testified to and a fact that we did not need all those accurate calculations to know because every single person who is opening their empty fridge and is wondering how they are going to feed their kids already knew that fact was real.

We cannot, in good conscience, stand by while the Prime Minister imposes more misery and suffering on the Canadian people. Canadians are good. They are decent. They are hard-working. They do not have to give up on things they used to take for granted, like affordable food and homes, just for the incompetence and the ego of one man. He is not worth the cost, not worth the crime, not worth the corruption, and he is not worth giving up the country that we knew and that we still love.

(1025) We, as common-sense Conservatives, are ready to restore hope in this country, but it starts with change. We rise today to vote non-confidence in the NDP-Liberal government and to restore the great country that we love based on the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition was bringing up headlines from The Globe and Mail, so I would like to bring up another headline that was in The Globe and Mail today. It states that the Leader of the Opposition's campaign manager “established second lobbying firm, working with the same office. The

article goes on to say, “Clients who booked meetings on [this new company's] website were redirected to the booking system [of] Jenni Byrne + Associates. That function was removed, as was Ms. Byrne's headshot...[from] the website, after The Globe's inquiries about the connection [of] the two firms.” Now that we see that the Leader of the Opposition 's campaign manager has tried to hide behind a second company in order to continue her lobbying practices, when will the Leader of the Opposition tell his campaign manager to stop lobbying and to start actually working for him?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, everything the member across the way said is completely, 100% false. This is coming from a government, by the way, that has presided over a 100% increase in lobbying activities. That is because lobbyists have come to know that in business today, someone does not get rich by having the best product; they get rich by having the best lobbyist. Someone does not get ahead by pleasing customers, but by pleasing politicians. The big government has left poor people. What we want is precisely the opposite.

We will slash the consultants and the lobbying sector, and we will unleash the productive forces of our working-class people in our factories, our farms, our forestry and our fishery sectors, and of the people who do the real work in this country. It starts by axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime.

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

Madam Speaker, we have another event of I am going to huff and to puff, and then, I am going to go off and have a fundraiser and some mojitos at Stornoway, while the poor backbenchers dutifully follow through. Do members remember when he said he was going to speak until the budget fell? That was for about three hours, and then he left. Do members remember when we had to vote all the way until Christmas? The only time we ever saw him in the House was to vote against Ukraine. We had nine confidence votes on Monday, and he was hiding behind the screen. Tonight, we will have votes.

Here is the question: At Dairy Queen, I do not know why he was fired, but if someone works for a living, they have to show up. Will he show up tonight, or will he be off fundraising with his lobbyist friends, leaving his poor schleps on the backbench to do the heavy lifting of bringing down the government and forcing an election? Show up for work.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

This happened in the previous question and answer. I just want to remind members that if they are not recognized, they should not be speaking. It is very disrespectful to do so. I know that a while ago, there was a question asked, and the person who asked the question was trying to intervene again, even though he had not been recognized. Others were trying to answer questions when someone else was trying to pose a question. I would just remind members to please be respectful in the House.

(1030) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, showing up for work means showing up for the people we work for. I have to say, I have been in his riding in the last two years more than he has. I have been on the ground in Timmins, and people there say that he should be in the witness protection program. He does not live in his riding. He is never in his riding. He has forgotten about the miners, the forestry workers and the farmers. He has voted to raise taxes on their home heating so that the people in cold, northern Ontario have to suffer in the cold and have to pay higher taxes.

Now, he is going to vote for his master, the Prime Minister of Canada , rather than the people in Timmins. I will fight for the people of Timmins here, everywhere and always.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. I want to remind members again that if they have had an opportunity to ask a question, they should take the opportunity to listen to the answer. If they have other questions and comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time. There is still some disrespect not only to the members who are speaking but also to the Chair. I just want to remind members to please be respectful.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition said that everything I had said was not true. I wonder whether he would step outside, where he does not have parliamentary privilege, and repeat that.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I am sorry, but that is a point of debate.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. There are members of Parliament here who are very experienced and know the rules of the House. I just wish they would be respectful and follow those rules. The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to know how the Leader of the Opposition plans to appeal to Quebeckers. We have heard him say outrageously incorrect things about mayors of our cities. Twelve mayors from my riding came to Parliament Hill yesterday. At some point, will the Leader of the Opposition come up with something different to say about Quebec mayors if he wants to appeal to people in Bloc Québécois ridings?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, I work for the people, not for politicians. When mayors are incompetent, whether they are from Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec City, Montreal or any other city in the country, I will say they are incompetent. Incompetent Bloc Québécois and Liberal politicians have doubled the cost of housing. That is not good for people. I work for those who can no longer pay their bills. If that hurts politicians, too bad. They are not my priority. Common-sense people are my priority.

[ English ]

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight long years, the Liberal government's war on the Canadian middle class is finally being realized. Inflation is up and house prices are up. Debt is up and bankruptcies are up. Canadians are visiting food banks in record numbers; 300,000 of them went in a single month in Toronto. One million more Canadians will visit a food bank next year than this year. People are joining Facebook groups to learn how to dumpster dive so they can feed their family. What is happening today is a far cry from the Canada we used to know and from the Canada many of us were promised. Canadians are asking why.

Why does food cost more and more every single time they visit the grocery store? Why does gas cost $2 a litre? Why is it harder and harder to pay the bills at the end of every month? At the root of this complex problem is a simple explanation, just two words in fact: “carbon tax”. The Prime Minister ’s carbon tax is adding more to the cost of nearly every basic necessity that anyone in this country buys anywhere. It is not complicated for Canadians.

When the farmer who grows the food is taxed, and the trucker who brings the food is taxed, the family that eats the food ends up being taxed, every single family everywhere in the country. It is, however, a difficult concept for Liberals and their NDP masters to comprehend, because they do not talk to people anymore. The MPs who are being forced to defend the indefensible over there are just about pulling their hair out right now. They jump down our throats, huffing and puffing and spouting misinformation about rebates and money that people are getting back. However, they are using Liberal math.

It is Liberal math that says that in Ontario, a family that pays $1,674 gets back $1,047, and then says that the family is better off. It is Liberal math that says that the Albertan who pays $2,943 and gets $2,032 is better off. It is Liberal math, like some bizarre fantasy, telling Canadians that less is more and that somehow they are better off. It is the same Liberal math that tells Canadians that budgets will balance themselves, that monetary policy is not important and that $60 million for arrive scam is some kind of accounting error. Canadians do not live in “Liberal Land”; they live in the real world.

They look at their empty fridges at home. They look at the price of gas at the pumps. They do not do Liberal math; they do real math. The real math is getting harder every day as budgets, bank accounts and borrowing are stretched to the limit for everyone everywhere. The Liberals used to talk about the environment, until the caucus revolt from the Prime Minister 's east coast MPs that forced him to admit that his tax was a tax, and that it was too much. Then he backed down from his signature fake environmental policy and gave them what they wanted, until, of course, the next election.

The radical Minister of Environment had a different takeaway yesterday. He told Canadians that we cannot put climate change on hold, and I agree with him. That is why it is so infuriating to see the carbon tax used under the guise of somehow improving Canada's environmental performance. After eight years of the Prime Minister , we rank 62nd out of 67 countries when it comes to climate performance. The environment minister could have scaled more floors on the side of a tower than 62 by now. The only emissions target we ever met was during COVID, when the government shut everything down in this country.

Our taxes are up. Our costs are up. Our emissions are going up. If the carbon tax does not give Canadians more money and it does not help the environment, then what are the Liberals doing? We know, and Canadians are finding out too: It makes the Prime Minister richer. There is more money flowing into the pockets of his Liberal coffers, where it can be funnelled to insiders and his well-connected friends. Those are the only people in this country who are better off after eight years.

It means more money to spend on high-priced consultants, more money to spend on trips around the world and, yes, more money to somehow make an $80,000 app cost $60 million. We all know this, the true cost, the true impact and, yes, the true intention of the carbon tax. It really seems like a sick joke that the Prime Minister would choose to raise it once again. It is not by just a little; it is by a whopping 23% for all Canadian families, for farmers and for first nations, in less than two weeks. It is not just because the tax is being raised; it is also because it costs so much to achieve so little.

That is the story of the current government.

(1035) It is also because it comes at probably the worst time for Canadians in a long time, probably since we last had a prime minister with the same last name as the current one. There are 51% of Canadians who are less than $200 away from bankruptcy, and a 23% increase will mean they are even closer, probably $200 more every year for the average family. There is more money flowing out of the wallet and not back into it. There is even more money to pay at the pump, at the grocery store and on the bills at the end of every month.

It is a kick to Canadians who are already down, and it is no surprise that 70% of Canadians and 70% of premiers, including Liberal premiers, and even more opposition parties across the country oppose the increase. It is because they all know what we know: The tax is not worth the cost, and neither is the Prime Minister . The Prime Minister says that these Canadians and these premiers just do not have principles, but he has it all wrong. They have something that he has never understood; they have bills to pay, they have mouths to feed and they have to get to work every day.

I have some advice for the Prime Minister and everyone else saying that things are wrong: Maybe it is time to finally look in the mirror instead of blaming everyone and everything else. For nearly two years, Conservatives have tried everything to force the government to listen to Canadians, but it just does not care. The Canadian people are tired of being taxed to death. They are tired of runaway inflation and runaway spending, and they are tired of being told it is all their fault.

They deserve a say in this 23% tax increase, so today the motion of non-confidence in the Prime Minister will allow every Canadian to go to the polls in a carbon tax election and have their say. It is the only right thing to do when Canadians have been pushed so far to the limit after eight years of the Prime Minister. It is the only right thing to do when the increase literally means the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for so many.

If the Liberal government is so confident in its carbon tax and so confident that everybody else is wrong, then it should not be afraid to let Canadians have their say and to weigh in. If the Liberal-NDP members from Atlantic Canada, rural Canada and, frankly, any part of Canada truly represent their constituents, then they would have the guts to stand up and vote against their boss today. It is long past time to axe the tax, and time is absolutely running out for Canadians right across the country, no matter where they live.

However, there is hope on the horizon with a government led by the Leader of the Opposition , and Canadians will finally get their say in a carbon tax election. If they choose to vote with the Prime Minister today, we will eventually have a carbon tax election in this country, and Canadians will have a choice between a Liberal government that divides to conquer and taxes to spend, bolstered by an even more reckless NDP that exists only to say yes to everything the Prime Minister demands, and a party that will finally axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

I will support the motion because we should let Canadians decide.

(1040) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, there are fundamental flaws in what people have just heard from the deputy leader of the Conservative Party , and that is that it spreads a lot of myths that are out there. For example, the member is trying to give a false impression. The reality is that over 80% of Canadians will receive more back in the form of a rebate than they pay for the carbon tax. She knows that. Those are real dollar figures. Their disposable income is going up. Why do the Conservatives continue to intentionally mislead Canadians? Do they really think Canadians are that stupid?

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

Madam Speaker, we know that when someone is yelling at the top of their lungs about mistruths, they are not winning the argument. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, if someone is explaining, they are losing. Here are the facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. For a Nova Scotia family, the gross fiscal and economic cost is $1,500. The rebate the family will get is $963. That is a difference of $573. We know that the Liberals do not understand that $1,500 is bigger than $963, but do they understand that when a family gets $573 less, it is worse off?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. However, I would like to clarify a few things. The Conservatives believe that the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec, is the reason people are lining up at food banks and riots are breaking out as food is being distributed. Perhaps they should tell the oil and gas companies to commit to a green transition and give back the money to food banks and people who need it.

(1045) [ English ]

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

Madam Speaker, the member suggests that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. There is a second carbon tax in Quebec that raises the price of gas by 17¢ a litre. That is going to raise the cost of everything that uses that gas to transport, from the farm to the grocery store to the table. The member suggests that does not have an effect. If the member believes people eating at food banks has nothing to do with the carbon tax, I do not think I can help her.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an extraordinary thing to say we are going to force an election that will cost $630 million. I agree with my hon. colleague that a leader needs the guts to stand up. On Monday night, the leader of the Conservative Party voted nine times in a confidence motion to support the government, but he did it hiding behind the curtain. This was on the night when we had the historic vote on peace in the Middle East and Gaza. He has a tendency to be missing in action when it is time to stand up. I could not get an answer from the member for Dairy Queen.

However, tonight, if he is willing to take the government down, will he actually stand up and be in the House, or will he be off with his lobbyist chief of staff and her lobbyist friends eating canapés and getting backhanders?

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has not been here long and I guess I have not been here long, but I do not think one can keep repeatedly referring to the presence or lack of presence of a member in the House. Twice he referred to the presence or lack of presence of the member in the House, and we are not allowed to do that. Is that not right?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind members to please be respectful in the House when referring to members of Parliament. Every member of Parliament is an honourable member of Parliament. On that point of order, I see the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I was not saying he was not in the House. I was asking if he is going to show up. There is a substantive difference. Since it is about an election, he better—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Again, I want to remind members they are not to say who is or who is not in the House. The hon. member for Thornhill has the floor.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

Madam Speaker, the member is actually incapable of being respectful to this institution, and soon, if he ever shows up in his riding, like the Leader of the Opposition pointed out earlier, if he ever takes a step into—

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, a fundamental principle of this chamber is that every member is treated with honour and is considered to be honourable. To say that the member is not even capable of having any respect completely goes against that tradition and that rule we have. I would ask, through the Speaker, for the deputy leader of the opposition to apologize and retract that comment.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind the hon. member that she had an opportunity to raise her point of order without being interrupted. I ask her and others to afford the same to other members. Also, I want to remind members to please be respectful toward each other here in the House. We are all honourable members. When that is not done in the proper fashion, we then have issues where the House is seeing some disorder, which is something we are having to rule on, unfortunately. We should not have to do that. The hon. member for Thornhill.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

Madam Speaker, it is always in order to talk about the competency or the incompetency of members of the House, particularly that member for Timmins—James Bay . If he bothered to go up in his riding, he would know what the people in his riding are saying, but he does not do that. He does not go there. He does not listen to anyone. The only person he listens to is his boss, the Prime Minister .

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power, my community in Windsor had an unemployment rate of 11.2%. Under the Conservatives, Canada lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Can the hon. colleague speak to the incompetence of the Conservatives in terms of job creation?

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

Madam Speaker, if the member had the courage to vote with his constituency, then he would hear them talk loud and clear about the incompetency of his own Prime Minister .

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. There were still some interruptions being made when the hon. member was answering the question. Again, whether someone is answering or asking a question, I urge both sides to be respectful and allow those questions to be heard so that everyone, even those at home, can hear the questions and the answers. Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government.

(1050) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to this nonsense motion. I will obviously be voting against it. I would like to think that, if there was any common sense on the other side of the House, Conservatives would recognize just how foolish the motion is when they incorporate the fact that the price on pollution is something the Conservative Party campaigned on in the last federal election.

Instead of trying to reflect the reality of real life today in Canada and the concerns about issues such as affordability and our environment, Conservatives choose to play this game in an attempt to participate in things such as a character assassination of the Prime Minister or the spread of false information, literally misinformation, to Canadians coast to coast to coast. I would like to put a few things on the record to try to highlight the degree to which Conservatives are misleading Canadians. Let there be no doubt about that.

When they say, for example, that they are going to “axe the tax”, what they are really doing is also axing the rebate. For the vast majority of Canadians, if the Conservatives were successful in axing the tax, that little disposable income of 80% or more of Canadians would actually go down. It would go down because we know for a fact that a vast majority of Canadians receive more money through the rebate than they pay in carbon tax. The member for Kingston and the Islands used his own personal example. Canadians following the debate today are going to hear a lot of disinformation coming from Conservatives.

I would recommend they look at the carbon tax they pay on the consumption of gas on an annual basis and the carbon tax they pay for heating their homes and then take a look at the carbon rebate. More than 80% of people will find that the rebate dollars are higher than the tax they are paying. By participating in this program, in the eight provinces that do, it means they are also contributing to a better and healthier environment. That is something in which the Progressive Conservative Party used to believe.

Some might say that I am a bit biased because I sit on the Liberal benches and maybe I am being a little harsh on Conservatives. Everyone knows the names of Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, who are former prime ministers. The leader of the official opposition started off talking about quotes. Let me provide a few quotes from those former prime ministers. The caveat I would put on this is that members have to realize that today's Conservative Party, that MAGA right party we have today, is not the same party of those former prime ministers I just listed off.

Let me clearly demonstrate why that is the case. The leader of the Conservative Party started off talking about quotes. I have a quote for him. I believe this is from the Toronto Star. It is from Kim Campbell, who was not only Canada's first and only female prime minister but a Progressive Conservative prime minister. To quote the headline, it states that he is a word I cannot say—

Mr. Rick Perkins: Where does she live?

(1055) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets that there will be an opportunity for questions and comments later, not right now. Again, I want to remind members to please respect the rules of the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the headline quote that is in the paper is, “He's a liar and a hate-monger”, and that is coming from former prime minister Kim Campbell, who slams the opposition leader. If you take a look, it says that, in Ottawa, former prime minister Kim Campbell called the current leader of the Conservative Party a word starting with the letter “L” and a hate-monger. That is what the former Progressive Conservative prime minister said, suggesting that she will not vote for his party in the next federal election. That is from a former Progressive Conservative.

People may say that it is only one prime minister, but I had another quote. This is what Joe Clark has to say about the modern MAGA right Conservative Party. I say “MAGA right” only because it is not the same as the Progressive Conservatives. Here is what Joe Clark, a former prime minister had to say: “I think it's a party that does not respect the progressive traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party and, consequently, does not reflect the country.... My party is over.” Again, this was from another Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada. There are some more quotes from Kim Campbell.

She said, “Well, I've never joined the Conservative Party of Canada. I think Joe Clark expressed it that he didn't leave the party, the party left him.... It is not the Progressive Conservative Party”. People need to be aware of this because we are seeing it in the decisions that are being made by the leader of the Conservative Party today. For example, the Conservatives made the decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That had more to do with the MAGA right moving into Canada through the leader of the Conservative Party today. That is no conspiracy. That is a reality.

Those were former prime ministers who have recognized that the Conservative Party today is not progressive. It is a party that Canadians cannot trust—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind members that there will be an opportunity to ask questions and comments at the appropriate time. There will be 10 minutes of it. I will ask members to please hold off on their thoughts and questions. Write them down. That way we will not have interruptions all the time. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, it does not stop with Joe Clark and Kim Campbell. What about Brian Mulroney? There was a poll that just recently came out where individuals across Canada, I believe about 80%, approved of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party. That is not to be confused with the MAGA Conservative Party of today. What did Brian Mulroney have to actually say? He said, “Look, I led a Progressive Conservative government.

We were very progressive in areas like international affairs with Mandela and human rights, the creation of the Sommet de la Francophone and all of those things, and in social policy as well. We were more conservative. Radio-Canada established last night, privatization, deregulation, low inflation, cutting government expenditures, we were more conservative than the Harper government. I thought that was a good mix.

That's the way it should be for a Progressive Conservative government, but they amputated the progressive part of the name, which is okay, but you shouldn't amputate that part of our heritage.” The current Conservative Party has abandoned its heritage, according to Brian Mulroney. The member says—

Mr. Rick Perkins: You know nothing of it.

(1100) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind the hon. member that, if he does not stop, I will be asking him to leave the chamber.

Mr. Rick Perkins: He knows nothing of it.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member is challenging the Chair now. Again, if he does not respect the request that has been made of him, he will have to leave the chamber.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I will continue with the quote. Brian Mulroney, former prime minister, said, “I think they work better together.” He was talking about the progressive nature tied to the Conservative nature of the party. He said that it works “better together, when both are prominent, and Canadians feel more comfortable” with it. Let us think about that. We have Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, and Joe Clark all coming up with genuine, legitimate concerns with today's MAGA Conservative Party and the far right element that has infiltrated it.

We can take a look at the elements of that far right and how in the States there is misinformation on social media on a daily basis, and that is exactly what we are seeing today on the floor of the House, whether it is from the leader of the Conservative Party or the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. The leader and the deputy leader of the Conservative Party continue to spread misinformation on a vital progressive piece of legislation and policy. A price on pollution is something that is essential to the development of any western nation. We see that first-hand.

I take a look at what is happening around the world in the European Union and Ukraine. I can talk about Mexico. People often say that there is no price on pollution in the United States, and that is not true. There are a number of states in the U.S. that have it. It is also not only the federal government. The provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have it because it is a progressive way to ensure that polluters, heavy polluters in particular, pay their fair share for polluting. It is a policy that makes a whole lot of sense, and one only needs to take a look.

Interestingly enough, in the 2008 election platform, Stephen Harper talked about putting a price on pollution. That was a part of their election platform, and there are 19 Conservatives who are here today who ran on that election platform, supporting a price on pollution then. That is not to mention the 100 who are in today's chamber who campaigned on a price on pollution. They knocked on doors and literally told Canadians through their election platform that they supported a price on pollution. All of that has been completely wiped out and forgotten across the way.

Instead, they have done a complete, absolute flip-flop. They have abandoned the progressive nature of the Conservative Party, all in favour of having a bumper sticker, and the bumper sticker says, “Axe the tax.” What do they mean when they say, “Axe the tax”? As I said at the very beginning of my comments, they are trying to give Canadians the impression that they are going to, by axing the tax, give economic benefit to Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth on that. That is absolutely and totally misleading Canadians. What they do not say is that axing the tax ruins the rebate.

They would be ruining the carbon rebate. They would be destroying a program, a price on pollution policy, that makes a whole lot of sense, not only for today, but also into the future.

(1105) I get emails, and people in my riding who talk to me, about how the Conservatives are going to axe the tax. They do not have any idea of the rebate component of it. I do not know how many questions they have asked about April 1 and getting this increase on the carbon tax. They say it is a 23% increase. I think it is less than a penny a gallon. Conservatives are talking about that because they want to get Canadians upset. They want them mad. That is what they want.

An hon. member: No, that is wrong.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : No, it is right. It is less than penny a gallon. Take a look at the math—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

There is starting to be some cross-debate. I want to remind members that there will be an appropriate time for questions and comments and to please wait until then. I want to remind members that, for the House to be able to flow properly, if people could respect the rules of the House, it would be much appreciated.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I might have confused a few members across the way when I used the word “gallon” as opposed to “litre”. I used to pump gas by the gallon at 11 years old back in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and I guess that is why I got them confused. However, it is less than a penny a gallon from what I understand, and I think it is about three cents a litre, but the point is that, when the Conservatives talk about that increase, what they do not say is that the rebate is increasing too. Whenever there is an increase in the carbon tax, there is also an increase in the carbon rebate. What does that really mean?

When the leader of the official opposition says to Canadians, or more specifically to the people who live in Winnipeg North, the area I represent, that my constituents are going to have a higher disposable income if the Conservatives axe the tax, I say, “bull”, and members can fill in the blank on that one because that is just not true. The disposable income for 80% or more of my constituents, contrary to what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying, would go down if we were to axe the tax and trash the rebate, which is what the leader of the Conservative Party is really saying.

Anyone in Canada can take a look at their gas carbon tax and their home heating carbon tax portion, and more than 80% will find that they will be receiving more back than they actually paid into it. At the same time, they are participating in a program that will deliver a healthier environment and would ultimately allow Canada as a whole to contribute, as do many other countries around the world, whether it is France, Italy, England, parts of the United States or Mexico. There are many countries contributing. Ukraine has been raised both today and during last night's debate on that particular issue.

We recognize that it is a sound policy. Why does the Conservative Party want to continue to mislead Canadians on this particular issue? The simple answer is that it is hoping to fool Canadians, and that is it. It is a bumper sticker that sure sounds good when Conservatives say, “Axe the tax.” It sounds good, but at the end of the day, when that election time comes, Canadians will be aware of the misinformation that is being espoused by the Conservatives, through social media, in particular, virtually on a daily basis. I will do my

part in ensuring that people understand that the disposable income for a vast majority Canadians goes up. At the same time, they are contributing to a healthier environment. That is the reality. That is the truth, and that is the message that I am going to be giving to my constituents. I look forward to when the day comes for us to have that election. Hopefully, we will see Canadians, as I believe they will, not only kicking the tires but also looking into what the leader of the official opposition is saying. Look at the environment around us. It is not just the federal government.

As I said, the Province of British Columbia has its own stand-alone price on pollution. The Province of Quebec has its own price on pollution. Mexico has a price on pollution. Many American states have a price on pollution. The European Union has a price on pollution. The list goes on. England and Ireland have a price on pollution. In the House of Commons, the Liberal Party supports it, the Bloc supports it, the NDP supports it and the Green Party supports it. Erin O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative Party and was booted out of the Conservative Party leadership, supported a price on pollution.

That is not to mention, as I said, every one of the Conservatives who ran in the last election supported it, but they are the ones who did the flip-flop.

(1110) My argument is that we should not ruin a sound policy that is being adopted by countries around the world because some modern-day MAGA Conservative leader decides to have a bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax,” hoping to fool Canadians. That would be a mistake.

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I believe that member knows absolutely nothing about the history of this party, and he referred to it quite a bit. I have been a member of this party since I was 17 years old. I knew Brian Mulroney; he was a friend of mine. He is lying in state and in repose. That member made the most classless statement I have ever heard in the House, while a prime minister is lying in repose, to try to slag the party that he led to victory, my party, which I served in. From his statement, the member knows nothing about that government and has no respect for the former prime minister.

That party, my party, is the one that has defended Canadians more than any other. As a member of Parliament from Manitoba, why is he trying to mislead his constituents, saying that paying an average of $1,750 in carbon tax in Manitoba is less than the $1,200 they get back? Perhaps he has that same Liberal math inability and cannot add—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I am so confident in every word I have said today that I would challenge that member, or any member of the Conservative Party who has a seat inside the House, to come to Winnipeg North and defend the policy position that the Conservative Party of Canada has adopted. I give my most sincere condolences to Brian Mulroney's family: his wife Mila, his children and grandchildren. There are many Canadians, 80%-plus, who think very fondly of Brian Mulroney. It is not out of disrespect for Brian Mulroney. What I am talking about is the motion that we have before us today. Let us think about it.

We can talk about the acid rain treaty, Ukraine independence or trade. The other night I even complimented—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

We have to get to other questions. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it feels a little like Groundhog Day in here. Again, we have another speech from the member, which is not unusual in this place, but it was just Tuesday that we had this exact same debate on a motion brought forward by the Conservatives. This is starting to look, more and more, like a stunt, when the Conservatives continually use their opposition days to do the exact same thing, knowing what the exact same outcome will be. I do not know if they have seen the movie Groundhog Day . They may want to take some time to watch that. Right now in Alberta, we have an unprecedented drought.

The wildfire season in Alberta began in February. I do not trust the that government is doing what needs to be done on climate change, but perhaps the member could talk about the fact that the Conservatives have no climate change plan whatsoever.

(1115) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point. When we look at the last couple of years, the Conservative Party has had approximately 20 opposition days on the issue of the price on pollution. The member is right in her assertion. There are many issues facing Canada that would be well served by having opposition day discussions or debate. However, that is for the opposition to ultimately determine what they want as an agenda item. They continue to want to choose this issue. Whether we have that debate today or during the next federal election, when that takes place in good time, I look forward to it.

I welcome that debate. I hope Canadians will really get engaged on the whole issue of a price on pollution and the benefits of the rebates versus the tax. I believe there is a net gain for a vast majority of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Edmonton Strathcona for putting the notion of Groundhog Day in my mind. It really is Groundhog Day when the Conservative Party's slogan is lifted word for word, rhyme for rhyme, from the British Columbia New Democratic Party's slogan in the 2008 provincial campaign, when the B.C. New Democrats, under Carole James, ran against the carbon tax. In fact, former premier Gordon Campbell, back in 2008, owed his re-election to the revenue-neutral, well-designed carbon tax brought into British Columbia by the relatively right-wing British Columbia Liberal Party.

Could we ever have a serious discussion in this place about the actual climate crisis, its galloping threat to our country and how the Liberal government might still, at this late date, put together a real plan?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I always find the leader of the Green Party to be a fountain of knowledge on the environment. She has a great history on it. My friend across the way paid a wonderful tribute to Brian Mulroney and highlighted how he was one of Canada's first powerful, well-spoken environmentalists. She raises a point that does need to be emphasized. There is so much more we can do on the environment, whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures.

I would like to think that over the last number of years, as a government, we have taken lead roles in both of those areas and have had a significant movement toward a healthier environment in Canada. We are demonstrating leadership around the world by some of the actions we have taken. It would be nice to talk more about initiatives, some that we have done and maybe some that we could do.

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the inflation rate in February was 2.8%, way below the 3.1% expected by the private sector economists. It is much below the 8.2% that we saw in mid-2022. The grocery rate, food inflation, is 2.4%, way below the 3.4% in January, and well below the 11% that we saw in 2022 and 2023. Could the member explain how this lowering inflation rate and the increase in the carbon rebate that low-income families are going get this year will help them cope with the rising cost of living?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister , and the government as a whole, has been very clear. We want an economy that works for all Canadians. It is supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. Nothing has changed in that approach. Day in, day out we work on economic policies that can lower inflation, which would include issues of affordability. We have rebate mechanisms, and the carbon rebate actually will help out. In fact, people will see that. Of those four payments, the next one will come out on April 15, I believe.

Many people start budgeting their monthly expenses based on those rebates. There are other ways financially that the government has been there to support Canadians. We still have a lot more work to do, but we are committed to doing the hard work that is necessary to get the economy working better for all Canadians.

(1120) Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said that the cost was going to go up by less than a penny a gallon. He did not reference whether that was an American gallon, which is 3.785 litres, or whether it was a Canadian gallon, which is 4.54 litres. I will note that the increase translates to 3.3¢, which is less than either of those two numbers. In a few moments, he is going to step into his lobby, interrupt his stream of, using his own language, bull, and members can fill in the blank that he puts into Hansard, and eat a lunch.

That lunch will have been produced by folks on farms like mine that have received fertilizer inputs. It has been trucked here to the distribution centre. Would he please enlighten the chamber as to how much of the carbon tax refund will be accounted for in his lunch?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I was pumping gas at 11 years old, so it was a Canadian gallon. I believe my numbers are fairly accurate, and I appreciate the comment regarding that. I can assure the member that I had a wonderful breakfast, but I will probably miss lunch. The point is that when we are looking at the price on pollution or the carbon tax, we are talking about a fraction of a percentage that has been attributed to it, whether it is Canada statistics or the Bank of Canada governor making that very clear. That is a false argument.

[ Translation ]

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I would go as far as to say that it is a pleasure to talk about the carbon tax. First, I would like to thank the Conservatives for having given us a break. Yesterday, we did not talk about the carbon tax. We talked about other things. Still, we had a day's respite. Since they had a day to talk about something else, we can see that they are beginning to diversify their intellectual assets and issues to debate. I would like to thank them. Obviously, today we are debating a motion that is unacceptable, because it is dishonest and misleads the House.

I am even surprised that this motion complies with the rules of the House. Not only does it suggest that the carbon tax will apply in Quebec, which is not the case, but it tells us that the increase will take place on April 1,

whereas it is spread out over a number of years. The motion is simply dishonest and, above all, it is a motion that rejects Quebec. I will call on my past experience as an educator and do some teaching. I will ask the Conservatives to repeat the following after me. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Even when I say it slowly, they do not understand. We could not go any slower than that, but they still do not understand. We voted many times to say that we had lost confidence in the government. We did so every time it was in Quebec’s interest. Since 2015, we have not voted in favour of any budget bill.

We voted against the emergency measures when we thought they were contrary to Quebec’s interests. If the Conservatives wanted to move non-confidence, they could have found a whole host of unacceptable things that Quebeckers do not like. There is nothing in the motion about the absence of $6 billion in health transfers. There is nothing to protect Quebec when it comes to immigration powers. A government could be brought down over these issues. There is nothing about returning Quebec's share of the federal cultural budgets. They want to shrink government, but they do not want to transfer power to Quebec.

When it comes to infrastructure, municipalities could be allowed to make their own decisions without having to follow federal orders. The Conservatives have no interest at all in that. We could allow Quebec to implement its own environmental laws. The Conservatives want to shrink the federal government, but they want to maintain control. Someone needs to explain to me what kind of economic conservatism that is. What about Quebec’s right to withdraw from federal programs with full compensation? They want more government, but they are Conservative. There is the lifting of conditions on housing.

There are tons of things the Conservatives could have put in their motion to satisfy Quebec, so that we could vote to show our lack of confidence in the government, but they decided to reject Quebec. I have said this many times, but nothing has changed. The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the carbon tax applies to Quebec. It does not apply directly to Quebec. We have our own cap and trade system. It does not apply indirectly by regulation, because our clean fuel regulations are more restrictive. I explained it again to a Conservative from western Canada yesterday in the lobby.

His eyes almost popped out of his head. He did not even know that. The carbon tax does not apply indirectly to Quebec because, according to the calculations of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada, the impact of the federal carbon tax on the price of goods in Quebec is in the thousandths of a percentage point. Now the Conservatives are telling us that, if there are variations in the price of emissions allowances in Quebec’s system, it is the federal government’s fault.

The member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis helped implement Quebec’s system when she was a Liberal cabinet minister in Quebec. The Conservatives did not make these statements in just any committee. The member for Lethbridge made a statement Tuesday in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In the newspapers in her riding, this member said that francophone artists from Quebec were a bunch of losers who could not achieve commercial success. The Conservative member for Lethbridge who said this was suddenly interested in the impact of the carbon tax on Quebec culture.

She cares about the impact of the carbon tax on losers in Quebec. She said it was very serious. Of course, there is a knight in shining armour on the committee, the member for Lévis—Lotbinière , who came to his colleague's rescue when he said that he would join the member for Lethbridge in explaining the collateral damage of the carbon tax on the arts community. I would like to tell the member for Drummond that he understands very well that Quebec chose the carbon exchange system adopted almost 10 years ago, but because of pressure from a Liberal government.

Yet, it was the Harper government in Ottawa that was regulating clean fuels. It was the Harper government.

(1125) As we know, under Quebec's system, that is to say the system implemented by the Liberal member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis , which I like to repeat because she was a Liberal in the Charest government, the number of permits traded is set in advance. It was determined by an order in council before the current government came to power. We know the number of permits that will be traded, even if there is a change of government. In addition, their price is increasing. The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the federal carbon tax applies to Quebec.

They must be at their 18th carbon tax. To hear them talk, that is all there is in the economy: carbon taxes. That is what they are trying to make us believe. It is true, however, that the price of carbon has gone up in Quebec. The Conservatives blame this on “justinflation” yet, in Europe, the price of permits has increased from 20 euros to 100 euros since 2005, and they are planning to reduce the number of permits by 62% by 2030. “Justinflation” has an impact as far away as Europe? Everything is in everything—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I would remind the member that he must not use the name of the Prime Minister in the House. He has done that twice now. The hon. member for Mirabel.

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Madam Speaker, for the Conservatives, everything is in everything. When it comes time to mislead Quebeckers and lie to them, everything is in everything. Is it the federal government's fault if the price of carbon went up in New Zealand and Switzerland? That is what the Conservatives are trying to make Quebecers believe. Why? Because, according to the member for Lévis—Lotbinière , everything is in everything. One of Voltaire's characters, who is a favourite of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot with whom I will be sharing my time, Pangloss, was always trying to come up with causal connections.

The Conservatives are making connections indiscriminately. For these Conservative members from Quebec, everything is in everything. It is because of ice cream sales that more people drown in the summer. It is because Scarlett Johansson is in so many movies that the planet is heating up. It is because of the Internet that there are no more fish in the St. Lawrence estuary. That is their logic. The carbon tax and the price of carbon in Quebec went up at the same rate as Internet rates. Is there a connection? No, absolutely not.

The Conservatives' attitude just shows that they will do anything for oil and that they will do anything to abandon Quebec and not do anything about Quebec's economy. That is why we want an independent Quebec. Since 2017, the federal government has injected $1.75 billion into major industrial clusters to develop Canada's and Quebec's economy. Montreal got the artificial intelligence cluster. The federal government invested $1.75 billion across Canada, one-fifth of that going to Quebec, but is giving the oil companies $83 billion in aid over the next 10 years.

We are giving up 237 potential Canadian Silicon Valleys to invest in oil. That is 237 industrial clusters. At the same time, there is no national forestry policy for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and eastern and northern Quebec, and no aerospace policy for Mirabel, Longueuil and Dorval. We are still waiting for that. There is no policy on generic or patented drugs. We lost all that to Manitoba, because western Canada had to have its share of the clusters. There is no industrial cluster for automation in Drummondville, despite the fact that Quebec is a world leader.

They are taking $83 billion of Quebec taxpayer money, one-fifth of which is paid by people who get a paycheque every two weeks from Quebec. We are paying for the oil. Do members know what they tell us then? They tell us that Quebeckers are getting equalization payments. The reality today is that the Conservatives, by misleading Parliament, are telling us that they want to trigger an election about an issue that has nothing to do with Quebec. Parliament, being sovereign, will make its own decision.

The day an election is called and we stand before our constituents, Bloc Québécois members will be proud to have been the adults in the House. We will be proud to be in the party that, every day we sat here, even if it was not easy, even if we were faced with disinformation, even if, on the ground, we were faced with the Conservatives’ institutionalized lying, had the courage to stand up to the Conservative Party and the other parties and to stick to the issues that will ensure Quebeckers a prosperous future. We will always be proud of that.

(1130) Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I will undoubtedly repeat the same thing as my colleague: everything is in everything. Quebec has the carbon exchange, while the other provinces have the carbon tax. When the carbon tax in the other provinces exceeds Quebec’s carbon exchange, Quebec will either have to adjust the carbon exchange upward or agree to implement the carbon tax so that Quebec pays the same price. In recent years, the carbon exchange has been higher than the carbon tax, which means that Quebec paid more for a litre of gas.

Now we are nearing equality, and soon the carbon tax in the other provinces will be more expensive than Quebec’s carbon exchange, which means Quebec will have to pay. Does my colleague think that the Liberal government will impose the carbon tax on Quebec?

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Madam Speaker, the member for Mirabel thinks that the member for Lévis—Lotbinière does not understand anything. Quebec opted for a system that regulates the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted. We have a number of emission permits that decreases every year and ensures that, in 2035, regardless of the price of permits on the market, we will achieve our goal. That is why, whether the member believes it or not, the federal government did not ask Quebec to raise its price. Quebec does not control prices.

What the member for Lévis—Lotbinière is saying implies that the Government of Canada could tell California how to run its carbon market. I hope he realizes how ridiculous what he just said in the House is.

[ English ]

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague put together his arguments very well and delivered his intervention very passionately, with probably a lot of assistance from the university he attended, which is the best university in Canada. In all seriousness, what I hear a lot is misinformation coming from Conservatives that somehow the federal backstop is applied in Quebec, when in reality Quebec has been very progressive on pricing pollution through the cap and trade model, with California and other states in the United States. Unfortunately Ontario used to be a part but has now taken itself out of it.

Quebec has been so progressive that the tax does not even apply to Quebec, yet day after day after day, Conservatives get up and say that it does. Why does he think Conservatives are doing that? Does he think they are specifically trying to spread misinformation to Quebeckers?

(1135) [ Translation ]

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives are exploiting people's distress in the face of a situation that has been difficult, inflation and a tough economic situation. I also think that the Conservatives from Quebec are kowtowing to their leader to get ministerial positions, and that involves compromising their values and principles. Now, Quebeckers are benefiting from the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. Since Quebec has clean energy, we have fewer corporate polluters.

We therefore have fewer requests for such allowances, which means that we are able to meet the targets that we set at a lower cost. That is why the impact of the cap-and-trade system on Quebeckers' pockets is much smaller than what we would see in the western provinces, where there is a lot of pollution. Quebeckers decided to use their environmental sovereignty to set up an effective, functional program that benefits Quebec consumers, and we intend to keep that system.

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel. His speeches are always passionate and informative. I would like to add a comment. That same member from Lethbridge called me a dictator in the House just because I wanted to protect Quebec artists who are leading the way and deserve to be supported. Wanting to protect artists from Quebec does not make me a dictator. I would like to come back to my colleague's question. How can disinformation have gone so far that Conservatives are voting against the agreement with Ukraine, saying that it will increase the carbon tax in Ukraine? That makes no sense.

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of listening to the Conservatives say that they are for the free market and capitalism. When it comes time to help our media, suddenly we have to allow market forces to decide and let our media disappear. When it comes time to promote our culture and help us defend our artists, then we have to allow the free U.S. market to decide and let our artists disappear. However, when it comes time to take billions and tens of billions of dollars of Quebeckers' money to pay for a pipeline, suddenly we need government intervention.

As we have heard here, there are Conservatives who, in Mulroney's day, participated in privatizing crown corporations within the Mulroney government. They are seated today and have never publicly come out against the fact that we give tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money toward pipelines. That is Conservative inconsistency. If anyone wants me to start with the inconsistencies of the member for Lethbridge , or other members of that caucus, I am game. We could have a take-note debate about it one of these nights.

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset and unequivocally that we do not have confidence in the Liberal government. My colleagues and I have no problem putting that on the record in this Parliament. That is why we have voted against the government on confidence votes, such as budgets and throne speeches, at almost every opportunity over the past few years. Today the Conservatives are calling for a confidence vote, but they did not just move a motion calling on Parliament to declare non-confidence in the government. The motion does not say simply that the House hast lost confidence in the government.

Rather, the motion links that confidence to a specific issue. What, then, could be the issue that warrants the House toppling the government and forcing Canada into an election? Is it immigration? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it the billions of dollars paid annually to oil companies, which continue to play fast and loose with the price at the pump? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it the nationalization of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost $34 billion to build, and which will mostly be paid for by taxpayers?

No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about outsourcing entire areas of government management to large corporations? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about challenging Quebec's secularism? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about eliminating Quebec's agricultural model? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about first nations issues? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about medical assistance in dying?

No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about the national and constitutional issue? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. We are witnessing the Ottawa coalition in all its glory. How ironic to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying earlier that the only difference between the Bloc and the Liberals is that they disagree on which city should be the capital. For one thing, that is utterly false. For another, we do agree that there is a pretty big difference between a capital where we make up less than one-quarter and a capital where we make up 100%.

That right there is an irreconcilable difference, and the Conservatives are Liberals on that subject, too. These issues are deeply important to Quebeckers, but the motion is not about these issues. The Conservatives say their motion is fully in tune with Quebeckers' interests, so what is it about? It is about a tax that does not apply in Quebec. The Conservatives' motion calls for an election that would serve as a de facto referendum on raising the carbon tax in the rest of Canada. In actual fact, not raising the carbon tax in the rest of Canada, or cancelling it altogether, could hurt Quebec.

If the rest of Canada stops pricing pollution while Quebec continues to do so with its own system, the carbon exchange, households will be at a disadvantage. Let me remind everyone that the carbon exchange was set up by a Liberal government that included the current member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis , and it was hailed by the current member for Louis-Saint-Laurent while they were both MNAs. That makes sense. Today, the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing a referendum election to push for a tax and climate injustice at the expense of Quebec’s competitiveness. At least it is clear.

We can say that Quebec’s contract with Erin O’Toole is long gone. This also shows us just how insignificant the Quebec wing is within its party. In fact, I find it hard to believe that they themselves do not understand it. Almost all of them stood firmly behind the very Liberal Jean Charest, their leader and the father of the carbon exchange, so I cannot believe that they do not understand this. Even if the leader of the official opposition says today that Quebec is very important to him, we can clearly see that he does not even listen to his own members from Quebec.

There has been quite a scandal surrounding the matter of energy and energy prices, but the scandal is not the carbon tax. While ordinary citizens are struggling to make ends meet, some people are lining their pockets. While ordinary citizens are being hard hit by inflation, a tiny minority is making record profits. In recent years, the oil and gas extraction sector raked in record profits of $38 billion over three years, and half of that was made in 2022 alone.

(1140) This is hardly the inflationary reality facing the constituents of all members of the House. Since 70% of the shareholders of these companies are foreigners, that money is not even staying within Canada. What is even more outrageous is the fact that the gift is doubled. Users pay at the pump, but since they are also taxpayers, they also send their taxes to Ottawa, which sends the revenues from those taxes to the ultra-rich so that they can continue to live the good life. It seems to me that they do not need any gifts given the record profits they have been making in recent years.

I do not think they need them. In the last two budgets, the federal government stated its intention to implement six tax credits for oil companies. According to the information provided by the Department of Finance, oil companies will receive a total of $83 billion by 2035. Is that the green transition in Ottawa? I am relying on the Department of Finance's numbers, but we all know that the government tends toward cost overruns in general. I do not think that it will cost any less than that in the end.

These oil and gas companies are the Conservatives' real friends, not the poor people who have to line up at food banks or struggle to find housing. Someone tell them to stop this nonsense. We do not believe them. We did not believe them before, and we believe them even less now. If the Conservatives had moved a non-confidence motion to take a stand against the huge profits of oil and gas companies or end the big corporate welfare system funded at taxpayers' and users' expense, we would probably have come onboard. However, a motion like this one just makes me want to tell them to stop wasting our time.

(1145) Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, which certainly lacked subtlety. I just want to double-check one thing. I think my colleague is going to vote with the Liberals yet again to shore up a corrupt government that is costing Canadians a fortune and causing a host of problems. Can my colleague simply tell the House whether he is going to vote with the Liberal government yet again?

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Madam Speaker, we should make a note of the date. Today is March 21, 2024, and a Conservative has just told me that I lack subtlety. Now we have seen it all. That being said, we are also no strangers to surprises in Parliament. I will simply respond by repeating what I have already said: We do not have confidence in this government. However, the Conservatives are talking about overthrowing a government and triggering an election over a motion based on a false premise that is an affront to Quebec. Given the current economic context, triggering an election on spurious grounds is extremely serious.

As I said, we would have backed the Conservatives if their motion had included an issue that actually affects Quebeckers, especially if that issue were not rooted in a position that is harmful to Quebeckers. I would like to hear the Conservatives truly denounce oil and gas company profits one day, because that is the real scandal.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the handouts to big oil and gas. We just heard that the Trans Mountain pipeline is going to cost taxpayers $34 billion. That money could have gone into climate solutions. We had the environment minister come to the environment committee, and I asked him if it was a mistake. He refused to answer. He said that the question should be for the finance minister . I told him that he was at the cabinet table and that he makes decisions with the government, yet he still refused to take accountability for the decision. Could you talk about the lack of courage from the Liberals when it comes to taking on oil and gas?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I will not talk about that, and I will remind the member that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot .

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Madam Speaker, through you, I will respond to my colleague. I would say that this undermines two things. First, it undermines the very idea of government, that a government must govern. It also undermines the very idea of the often ridiculous parliamentary system that we use, which is based on the principle of ministerial responsibility. The government must be accountable to Parliament. I will admit that I was unaware of the incident my colleague mentioned. This is the first I have heard of it. Unfortunately, I am not surprised.

We have a government representative who, in answering the parliamentarians to whom he is supposed to be accountable in a committee, says that it is not his responsibility even though it is something that is completely under his purview. He could simply say that he does not have the information. That is one thing. That is honest. However, for him to say that it is not his responsibility, when his government is meant to be accountable to parliamentarians, does not make sense to me.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Victoria . The Trans Mountain pipeline is a huge scam that flies in the face of climate action. It comes at an unbelievable cost of over $34 billion, for a pipeline that makes no sense, which is what the private sector, in the shape of Kinder Morgan, had decided. I would like to hear my Bloc Québécois colleague's thoughts on that.

(1150) Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Madam Speaker, let us speak plainly. My colleague knows our position on that pipeline. Let us not forget that, generally speaking, fossil fuels are archaic. We need a transition. That does not mean that people will start working in that area overnight. A transition means having a plan. It means starting at point A and, in a few years, arriving at point B. We need to plan ahead, year by year.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay . Right now, Canadians are struggling. They are struggling with the cost of living and paying for rent, groceries and medication. They are struggling because they are also feeling the profound impacts of the climate crisis. Thousands of people were evacuated from their homes in the wildfires last year. Hundreds of people died in the heat dome that hit British Columbia. There have been hurricanes, drought and extreme flooding. The climate crisis is here now.

Unfortunately, there is a party on one side of the House that denies that climate change is even a crisis. On the other side of the House, there is a party that makes promises, breaks promises and talks about climate action but does not take the action necessary that would match the scale and urgency of the crisis we are in. I have heard from so many people in my home community of Victoria who care about the environment. They want to protect their families. They are choking on smoke during the summers. They are seeing the profound impacts this crisis is having across our country.

They are also very concerned about how they are going to make the rent next month or pay their mortgages. They are very concerned about the skyrocketing costs of food, gas, medication, everything. People are struggling to get by. Unfortunately, they do not have a government that is looking out for them. Instead, we see the people at the very top, CEOs of the wealthiest corporations, making record profits.

The oil and gas industry is gouging Canadians at the pump, continuing to rake in billions of dollars and then getting handouts from the government in carbon capture and storage and billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies that consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have been giving them for decades. Grocery store CEOs are making millions of dollars while everyday Canadians are struggling to afford their bills. While the Conservatives today have put forward a motion pretending that they care and want to give Canadians a break, New Democrats know that corporate greed is what is driving up inflation.

Corporate greed is driving up the cost of groceries. Real estate developers and rich investors are treating our housing market like a place to get rich. When they look at the housing market, they see something great that is working for them. When everyday Canadians experience the housing market, it is a crisis. It is scary. It is scary for people not knowing whether they will be renovicted. It is scary for them not to know, if they lose their homes, whether they will be able to find one they are able to afford or whether they are going to be able to pay their mortgages next month.

The Conservatives' governing body, 50% of it, is made up of lobbyists from these very industries: real estate investors, oil and gas, pharmaceutical companies. It is no wonder they do not want to take on corporate greed. It is no wonder they refuse to put forward solutions that would actually tackle the inequity that exists in our country. On the other side of the House, while the Liberals talk about climate action and affordability, they will not take the action needed to take on these big corporations. They refuse to address the climate emergency with the urgency and scale that is required.

To be honest, if we have an option between climate denial and climate delay, the result is the same. It is climate inaction. People will continue to struggle. What people in Canada see more and more is that the climate crisis is a pocketbook issue. When crops fail, when there are multi-year droughts, when wildfires impact communities, the cost of groceries goes up.

(1155) When we have oil and gas companies, and rich CEOs at the head of grocery store chains making record profits, and everyday Canadians struggling with the cost of living and with the impacts of the climate crisis, one would think we would have a government that would take action. There are solutions. We could implement a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies and could put that money into retrofitting people's homes, into building public transit, into the climate solutions we know would make a difference and into renewable energy.

Instead, we have a government that has invested $35 billion into the Trans Mountain pipeline. We know that the oil sands have been ramping up production in anticipation of the Trans Mountain pipeline opening. Imagine, in a climate crisis, ramping up oil and gas production so that they could ship raw bitumen to the coast, threatening our coastal communities, the ecosystems and the very livelihood of coastal communities and threatening indigenous communities. It is so disheartening.

It makes Canadians cynical when a government declares a climate emergency, and the very next day, it approves the Trans Mountain pipeline. It makes people cynical when the Prime Minister gets up and says that he believes in climate change and the climate crisis but then puts forward an oil and gas cap that is so watered down that it does not even meet their own weak climate targets. It does not even meet our Paris Agreement. This is not climate leadership. Canadians should not have to choose between bad and worse or between deny and delay. Let us implement a windfall tax on big oil and gas.

Let us make sure that all low- and middle-income Canadians have access to heat pumps. Let us make sure that we are investing in our public transit system, in reducing our emissions and in ensuring that we invest in renewable energy. There are billions of dollars that the Liberal government continues to hand out to wealthy oil and gas CEOs in the form of fossil fuel subsidies that could be going into climate solutions.

However, we will not hear either of those parties talking about moving the billions of dollars that they hand out to big and oil gas through carbon capture and storage or though the tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. We will not hear them talking about moving that money into supporting communities impacted by the climate crisis.

We could fund a youth climate corps and could employ young people in the industries, in the jobs of the future, in responding to climate disasters, in making our communities more climate resilient and in bringing down our greenhouse gas emissions, in retrofitting our homes and in changing over our infrastructure to green infrastructure to ensure that we build an economy and a country that are climate safe and that is climate resilient. Every day I hear from Canadians who are worried about their future, and they are also worried about right now. Canadians are struggling with the cost of living.

They are struggling, seeing the impacts of the climate crisis. They want a government that would take on the culprits, the people who are fuelling this crisis and the people who are gouging Canadians. It is time we had a government that looks out for everyday Canadians, not just the people at the very top, not just those CEOs who are ripping people off. It is time that we take care of Canadians who are seeing their costs go up, who are seeing their communities, sometimes, devastated by extreme flooding, by continued drought and by wildfires. Wildfire season is starting in February.

We now know that Canada has the worst air pollution in North America. Last year, we had the best in North America. Now, because of wildfires, the top 13 worst polluted cities in North America are here in Canada. I want to finish by saying that Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve a government, and every party, that is fighting the climate crisis like we want to win.

(1200) [ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, all day, and indeed every day for months now, the Conservatives have been blaming the carbon tax for everything. If the culture sector is in trouble, it is because of the carbon tax. If people ask for MAID, it is because of the carbon tax. If people are lining up at food banks, it is because of the carbon tax. It reminds me of Plume Latraverse, who sang “it's El Niño's fault again”. Simply replace the words “El Niño” with “the carbon tax” and, voila, it is the Conservative platform. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the food bank issue.

What we are hearing in Quebec is that the cost of food is higher primarily because of climate change. That is what people are telling us. Farmers are struggling because of drought or excessive rainfall. I would like to hear my colleague's comments about the cost of food going up because of climate change and the fact that the Conservatives are still denying the existence of climate change.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has it exactly right. The climate crisis is impacting food costs. We know that there are multi-year droughts in British Columbia and in Alberta and that crops are being impacted. Just this week, the Province of British Columbia created a water infrastructure fund with $80 million to support farmers because they know what is coming. We have seen the impacts of this multi-year drought on farmers and on our crops. It is felt by consumers at the grocery store, and costs are rising. The experts have communicated this very well.

It is not the carbon tax that is making groceries so expensive; it is the climate crisis, and it is also corporate greed. Rich CEOs, the Galen Westons of the world, are making record profits, and they are gouging Canadians. We need a government that will take this on.

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

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend from Victoria and I agree on many things. Will she agree with me that it is never too late, even after $34 billion has been wasted on building the Trans Mountain pipeline, to refuse to open it? The use of the Trans Mountain pipeline will have the effect of increasing greenhouse gases from the oil sands and will massively increase the risk of a dilbit spill in the Salish Sea, which cannot be cleaned up.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her ongoing advocacy on this. The Trans Mountain pipeline is a complete disaster. It is an economic and environmental boondoggle. We do not want to see the increase in bitumen on our coasts, the increase in tanker traffic and the impacts on coastal marine ecosystems and on emissions globally. This project is a disaster; it should have never happened.

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Victoria for highlighting the tremendous risks that the climate crisis presents to Canadians and in particular to young people. We have heard recently from young people across the country, from coast to coast, about the need to ensure that young people are at the forefront of action in this country. We know there are solutions to the climate crisis that young people so desperately want to be involved in, particularly their work in promoting a youth climate corps. Can the member speak about the importance of having youth at the forefront of what will be the devastating consequences of climate change if we do not act?

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his ongoing advocacy for a youth climate corps. We co-hosted a youth climate corps town hall, and we had hundreds of young people join us. There were people from in-person watch parties in 16 communities across Canada who urgently want a government to take action and who want to get involved and to actually make a tangible difference. A youth climate corps could employ young people in the climate solutions, could train them up in the jobs of the future and could give them access to training and to education. We know that young people feel the climate crisis acutely.

Over 50% of them have said that they are so concerned about climate change that it impacts their daily lives. The vast majority of them are so concerned that it is impacting how they live and how they are able to engage. We need to give young people a pathway to make a difference. The youth climate corps is a way we can do this—

(1205) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in Parliament. On my way over here, I had to almost elbow my way through the big, long line of Conservatives with their phones, doing selfie videos, saying that they were here in Parliament today, that they were going to huff and puff, and that they might blow the House down tonight, and then they asked people to please send money to their addresses as quickly as they could. The price of a federal election is $630 million.

If we tell our constituents and the people of Canada that the member for Carleton , the official opposition leader, is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer $630 million in an election because things are so desperate and people need to stand up, then we certainly expect him to be here to do that work if it is that serious. Just this past Monday, we had nine confidence votes. For those who watch Conservative TikTok, I will give them a little explanation. A confidence vote causes an election, yet we saw all the dutiful backbench Conservatives vote to show confidence in the government.

Now, three days later, it is the “huff and puff and they may blow the House down” strategy when there are going to be nine confidence votes tonight. Given the importance of this and given the fact that we would plunge the nation into an election at this time, I really hope to see the member who lives at Stornoway standing here and leading his troops because it is one of the concerns I have had. I have been accused of making claims about his background and about the fact that he apparently worked for Dairy Queen. I am willing to retract that, because we actually do not know if he worked at Dairy Queen.

I have tried to find what his job résumé was before he became a professional political “whatever he has been his whole life”. Some say he had a paper route, and others say he worked at Dairy Queen. It does not seem that he actually may have done both. However, if he worked at Dairy Queen, I am sure they taught him that he had to show up, because showing up is a fundamental thing we learn in jobs. When I was younger and was trying to feed my two young daughters by working on construction sites, I was told if I was not ready to go with all my tools by 7:30 in the morning, do not to bother to show up.

I had to pay the rent at the end of the month, so I learned to show up. I raise this because there is a pattern with the member. I remember when he said that he was going to stand in the House and speak until the budget fell. That was extraordinary. All the little Conservatives who repeat all his talking points and who get the gold stars, all stood around him. They were going to stay in the House until he brought the House down and would cause an election. Then, after about two hours, he ran out of gas because he ran out of slogans.

When one's entire electoral platform is a bumper sticker slogan, even the member who lives at Stornoway gets tired, so after two hours, he gave up and went home, but he thought they were going to have an election. I remember, before Christmas, he said he was going to keep us voting in the House until Christmas. We came and waited, and that never happened. Again, I do not know whether he was off having canapés and mojitos with Jenni Byrne, the lobbyist for Loblaws, and her staff, who are apparently lobbying the federal government through Forecheck Strategies, but we did not see him.

All the poor schleps were left here for two nights doing the hard lifting of voting against the government. What did they vote against? They voted against support for Ukraine, and that was actually one time he showed up; he showed up to vote against Ukraine. He had to be on the record that he voted against Ukraine, because Tucker Carlson would have been displeased. They voted against clean water on reserves. They wanted to get that on the record. They showed up and voted against a national suicide hotline, because they were going to force an election.

I felt bad for my colleagues in the Conservative Party who dutifully stayed up all night when the member for Carleton was having canapés at fundraisers. We did not vote until Christmas, but he was going to bring the House down.

(1210) On Monday night, there was a historic opportunity to bring the government down, and he was voting from behind the curtain. That was the night we moved the historic vote for peace in Gaza, a vote that has been recognized around the world. Numerous other jurisdictions are now following Canada's lead because the New Democrats showed up that night. We showed what it means to come to work every day and work, to find a compromise plan to recognize the need to deal with the horrific death of innocent children in Gaza.

We showed what it means to say that the terrorist attacks by Hamas should be condemned and that the people of Israel have a right to live in peace, but, because of the systemic killing of journalists, aid workers and children, the Netanyahu government cannot be given any more weapons. The New Democrats showed up, and that was historic. Again, I would advise the member , who probably puts some ice cream and walnuts on a Dairy Queen banana float, that if he is going to be a leader of this country, he should show up and stand up at these historic moments.

He does not get to go off to Stornoway, have canapés and leave the poor schleps on the backbench to do the heavy lifting. Monday night was an opportunity and he missed it. With respect to the Conservative bumper sticker slogans, one has to put three or four of them on side by side now. Today the member comes in again, and this is the moment he says that he is going to axe the tax and force an election. He says he is putting $630 million on the line. Will he be here tonight? In 2021, when the Liberals decided to go to an election, people were telling us to get back to work.

They wanted us to work in here and get something done. They asked what I was going to do if I went back to Parliament. I said that we were going to get national dental care, because we heard about that at the doors. I said that we would fight to get national pharmacare if they gave us a check to hold the Liberals to account. We will hold the Liberals to account, because that is what we do. We show up for work. It is not a hard concept. Canadians are hard-working people; they show up for work. They understand. Canadians are not dummies.

The member who lives in a 19-room mansion with his own private chef goes on about a carbon tax affecting the price of food. Canadians know that it is the relentless gouging by Loblaws doing so. We have never, ever heard the member speak about Loblaws. Canadians understand this when they find out that Jenni Byrne, his chief boss, was a lobbyist for Loblaws. Last night, a working-class guy wrote to me. He has to drive his truck to get to work and drives 50 to 100 kilometres each day to get out to the mine. He asked about the carbon tax, because he saw that the price of gas in our region went up 20¢ overnight.

I told him he was getting gouged. Then he asked if I could break down the carbon price for him. I told him it was three cents a litre. Then he asked where the other 17¢ went. I told him that it went to Rich Kruger, the CEO of Suncor, who told his investors at the height of the worst climate catastrophe we have experienced that there was an urgent need for them to make even more money. The oil industry in Canada last year made $78 billion, and we have never heard the member who lives at Stornoway talk about that.

We have never heard a single Alberta Conservative stand up to talk about how we are four years into a brutal drought. The Oldman River reservoir is almost empty. I was in Edmonton in January; there was no snow on the ground and it was above zero. We have never heard a single Conservative talk when, because of the climate catastrophe, fire season is announced in northern Alberta in February. Conservatives are climate deniers, and there is a reason for that.

If they admitted that the planet is on fire and children cannot go out because of the catastrophic fumes from the oil and gas sector's pumping of CO2 emissions, then they would need a plan. However, they do not have a plan because it would not fit on a bumper sticker slogan. I am going to conclude on this simple thing: The member for Stornoway said that he is going to lead this country, force an election, bring it home, axe the yakking and do the backtracking all the way to a fundraising event tonight. He should show up and do his job.

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

Madam Speaker, this member knows exactly what is going on with the Conservatives. It is all theatre. It is all theatrics when they are out there wearing the cult jerseys, doing their videos and talking about what is going on. Let me read what the member for Calgary Shepard put on Facebook. He said, the “NDP-Liberal coalition voted against the Conservative motion to spike the carbon tax hike. It was [the Prime Minister's] last chance to provide relief for Canadians.

Brace for impact: Conservatives are now calling a vote of no confidence, steering us straight into a Carbon Tax Election.” This is the theatre that is being put on by these jokers in order to raise money. What does the member think of that?

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I have watched the member who lives in the 19-room mansion in Stornoway brace for impact time and time again, as he stands up and announces that he is going to huff, he is going to puff, he is going to vote Parliament down. However, he cannot really be here, because he has to head off to a fundraiser with Jenni Byrne and the Loblaws lobbyists at Forecheck Strategies to have canapés at Stornoway.

My only concern is for the poor schleps here who are left behind, night after night, having to stand up and vote against Ukraine, having to stand up and vote against a national suicide crisis hotline while their boss is drinking mojitos. Conservatives are told to brace for impact. There will be one more night when they will have to show up. Wait a minute, were we not supposed to vote while they were going to huff and puff all weekend long? Then they thought, “Oh, well, it's going to be too long. Can we just go home?”

Mr. Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it must be great being a member of the NDP, those paragons of virtue who come here and criticize members on this side. What have they accomplished on their side for Canadians? The price of housing has doubled. Mortgage costs have doubled. Two million people are visiting food banks because of their support of the Liberal government. When they talk about environmental policies, guess what? The carbon tax is not an environmental policy. Can you tell us how much has been reduced because of the carbon tax?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

As the hon. member knows, I cannot answer any question. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, we can imagine the poor Conservatives asking New Democrats how to get things done. They have come here for three years to jump up and down, howl at the moon and say they are going to bring Halley's comet to strike this place; next, they have something else. I am more than willing to help school my friend. I cannot see his name tag. What did we do? We showed up and we got a national dental care strategy while they said they would vote against it. We got coverage for diabetes, which they would take away from people, while the member for Stornoway has all those benefits. We got peace and Canada's stance for Gaza, while they stood back and did nothing except huff—

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague is quite right. We are losing a whole day again. I think that is something we, in the House, cannot afford. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are engaging in theatrics, and very bad theatrics at that. My question is this. Arrangements are being made for us to vote until midnight on Friday and Saturday. It is highly unusual for the House to sit on a Saturday. Sitting is not the problem, but sitting this Saturday, the day of Brian Mulroney's funeral, is a problem. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the matter.

(1220) [ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, although Conservatives are demanding to vote until midnight on Saturday, I would bet they are going to fold like cheap suits. They always do. I would encourage my friend to probably plan to go home, because the leader of the Conservatives is going to be off doing fundraisers, drinking and eating canapés with lobbyists for Loblaw and Jenni Byrne. Meanwhile, the rest of the schleps are going to start to cry and ask to please go home. They are all going to leave. I am ready to stay until Saturday night, but I was ready to vote until Christmas and they all packed up and left.

I would say that, if there is going to be a vote against Ukraine on Saturday night, they will all come in to make sure they are there. However, if we do not vote against Ukraine, I bet the Conservatives will all want to go home.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I agree with much of what the member for Timmins—James Bay just said. We talk about the Conservative hype. This, as I said in my question for him, is just theatre for Conservatives to motivate their base and raise money. That is all, that is it, and it is nothing more. The Conservatives talk about bringing in a confidence vote this evening. We have 11 confidence votes this