Debates of Feb. 1st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week a dairy farmer in my riding called me. He was calling in reference to one of these federal government grants, and he said that it is almost as if the government is forcing him to spend money on something. He said that what the Liberal government does not seem to understand is that he wants to lower his input costs and make his barn as efficient as possible, but he does not want to be cajoled into a single program by a bureaucrat in Ottawa about what he should be doing with his business and his family farm.

Maybe the member from Ontario can comment on what a Conservative approach would be to letting farmers produce the food we need and not letting government get in the way all the time.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. I hear the same thing from farmers. I mentioned before about the elevators, about Rutters Elevators in Chesterville. I talked to Mike Aube about the carbon tax bill and the massive increases they are seeing there. Mike was telling me that they want to build greenhouses and expand their operations, but whenever they see their bills go up by the hundreds and thousands of dollars and look at their overall cash flow, it creates a serious problem. The increases they are forced to pass on to everybody else do not allow new projects for Canadian-grown food to be expanded. Chesterville is a perfect example.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Here we are once again, talking about the same motion based on the same red herrings we have seen time and time again coming from the Conservatives. I listened to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon just moments ago, where he tried to imply that the federal funding toward the reduction of emissions and toward clean technology was only one particular program. It is clear the member has no concept whatsoever of what the federal government is doing for farmers, in that there are so many programs.

When I said $6.8 million, I was giving the total number over a whole vast array of various different programs. It is not a single program, but it is not new and not unique to me to hear Conservatives talking like this. It is what they want to do repeatedly. They want to take an issue like global inflation and try to apply it to Canada and say that it is a problem only in Canada. They say that this is a problem that has been created by the price on pollution, which is ludicrous.

We know, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the price on pollution contributes to 0.15% as it relates to inflation. It is literally negligible and could be chalked up to a rounding error, yet Conservatives jump on it as though this is what is making life unaffordable for many Canadians right now. They do not want to talk about the realities. They do not want to talk about what is actually going on throughout the world and how Canada is positioning itself to be at the forefront when it comes to these new technologies.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about building car batteries in Canada. Is he not aware that the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, one of his Conservative members, had the largest investment, not in Canada but in North America, for building batteries to go into vehicles? That is all happening a 20-kilometre drive from where I live, in Hastings—Lennox and Addington. This is setting the course for the future in terms of the industry being at the forefront, so that we will not be importing technology and so that we will be the ones actually creating the technology and developing those products right here in Canada. That particular facility, Umicore, will produce 800,000 batteries to go into vehicles each and every year. It is a multi-billion dollar investment from Umicore, not just into Canada but into Ontario, into Hastings—Lennox and Addington, into the Kingston region.

This is huge, but it is only one example. We are well aware of Stellantis and the other various different players emerging in Canada as it relates to environmental technologies and the green technologies of tomorrow. People look toward Canada. Companies and businesses look toward Canada because they know we have the resources and the political will to push toward this new and emerging technology. This is why we are seeing people come and invest here.

While I am on the topic, do members know why Umicore even picked Ontario? The president of Umicore said, in his press conference, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington was there with a big smile on her face when it happened at Queen's University two summers ago, that Umicore chose Ontario because it is producing environmentally sustainable products and it wants to know that what goes into those products is environmentally sustainable. A vast majority of the resources that go into building those batteries comes from electricity, and he recognized that Ontario does not burn coal to produce electricity. That is thanks to a previous provincial Liberal government, by the way. He recognized that Ontario has taken great strides toward ensuring that we have renewable, sustainable electricity produced in a responsible way. That is why companies are choosing to invest in Canada. That is why they are choosing Ontario. That is why they are choosing Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

The mayors in the surrounding area, including in Kingston, are thrilled about this. The city councils are thrilled about this. The economic opportunities that are being produced as a result of investments like this, because of the initiatives of the Liberal government, will last for generations, quite frankly.

I get real kick out of it when I see Conservative members being super excited about these things when they are back in there ridings, but when they come to the House of Commons, they toe the line of the Leader of the Opposition, that the only solution forward is to go back to burning as much fossil fuel as we possibly can.

When we talk about the price on pollution and what Conservatives are proposing today, it is really important that we actually talk about what they are proposing. They talk about axing a lot of stuff. What they are going to be axing are rebates to families. It might not be the families that they are interested in, because lower-income families receive more through the climate action incentive rebate than higher-income families. However, the reality is that what Conservatives would be axing, is a family of four, in the spring of this year, will receive $244 for one quarter; in Manitoba, $264; in Saskatchewan, $340. The same family living in Alberta, for one quarter, would receive, and currently receives, $386.

We hear the Conservatives routinely say that we are going to double it or triple the tax, but of course they do not tell us the timeline, because some of the timelines are a decade out. However, what they forget to say is that the rebate doubles and triples as well. We recognize that in order to transition away from fossil fuels, which I want to do, and I know many members of the House of Commons, the Canadian population and a majority of our constituents want to do, we have to incentivize people to make change.

In an economic model that is built on capitalism, that is built on supply and demand, the way to incentivize people is by putting a price on things on which we want to change behaviour. We would think that the Conservatives before anybody else would know this. The same thing happens with taxes on tobacco. The same thing happens with taxes on other products where we are looking to change behaviour. However, the key difference to any other tax, and what the Conservatives never want to mention, is that in order to accomplish this, but still be reasonable for families to absorb those prices, is to return all the money to them.

The natural question is, “Why do it in the first place?” I just assumed that Conservatives could understand how market mechanisms work to incentivize and change behaviour in the market. Apparently they do not.

The good news is that we know that it is working, and we are starting to see it. The projections are showing that by 2030 over a third of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed specifically to pricing pollution.

We are not the only ones that price pollution. Countless jurisdictions throughout the world price pollution. Ukraine prices pollution. Ukraine, a country that is literally at war right now, prices pollution, and it has since 2011. It was the only way that the European economy was going to let it participate in the economy. Most, if not all, European economies have a price on pollution in one form or another, whether that is a direct price, or cap and trade or one of the various different models.

The Conservatives never miss an opportunity to try to conflate and confuse Canadians as to what the realities are when it comes to the price on pollution and how it works, generally speaking.

Once again, we find ourselves in a position where the Conservatives have brought forward motion after motion on the same issue, not just the issue of pricing pollution and the fact that they are against it but on an issue that they ran on in the last election. All Conservative members in here, whether they say they agree with it or not, ran under a policy that included pricing pollution. Now they have such buyers' remorse over their last leader that they have used just about every opposition day in this session of Parliament on this issue.

I am looking forward to answering questions that my colleagues might have. I am quite certain that this is not the last time the Conservatives will bring forward this motion, but it is certainly a policy that will be to the benefit of our environment in the future.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to rise today to explain the many reasons why the Green Party will be voting against today's opposition motion, but I would like to ask my friend from Kingston and the Islands to comment on this. We had an earlier exchange about whether enforcing the carbon tax or raising the carbon tax could stop fires and floods. The answer from science is clear that it cannot.

We cannot turn back what has happened to the atmosphere with respect to atmospheric chemistry and physics, but we can avoid runaway global warming, the kind that self-accelerates and becomes unstoppable. We must not stoke the furnace further on future warming to destroy the lives of our children, which is why we need carbon pricing, and we need more to reduce emissions much more quickly.

Does my my hon. colleague have any comments on that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague from the Green Party on this. The reality is that this false narrative or red herring reminds me a lot of the one that we hear quite often from Conservatives about Canada's fossil fuels being the cleanest in the world, as though that is some reason why we should not seek to do better. Rather than doing something about a problem, their solution is to exploit our resources because they are slightly more cleaner than other jurisdictions.

We know that what it really comes down to is that Canada is a leader. We are a G7 country. We benefited from the industrial revolution immensely. It is to the benefit of every citizen in our country, like all our other G7 partners. We have an obligation to the world to be at the forefront, to lead the charge in terms of changing our environmental practices throughout the globe.

This idea that we can somehow dismiss the issue away because we are a bit better than some other countries is a huge red herring. It is what we hear time and time again from Conservatives and it is getting pretty stale.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in December, the Atlantic caucus of the Liberal Party came together with the Prime Minister to make an announcement on heat pumps. It just so happened that the announcement was taking place at the same time as the carbon price was about to go up. For all the rhetoric we are hearing from the member from Kingston today, when push came to shove, when the government was faced with a price increase that people in Atlantic Canada could not afford to stomach, it backed down.

Does the member think it is okay for Canadians to pay more in carbon taxes than heating like natural gas, which is very commonly found on bills in Canada today?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 Canadians get back more than they put in. Yes, some Canadians who have very large homes and multiple vehicles probably end up spending more than they get back. In particular, individuals who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum are certainly getting much more back than they are paying.

I find it really interesting that he accuses me of all this rhetoric. Conservatives continually miss the point of explaining to Canadians that they are going to get back more than they are paying. They would rather seek an opportunity to capitalize from a political narrative that suits them right now because it will benefit them politically. However, it will do nothing for the environment and nothing for our country.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish we had started the year the same way you did, with a new look and new priorities. I wish the Conservatives would do the same and let us move on to something other than the carbon tax. That said, it is the topic of the day, and we will respect that.

In his speech, my colleague said something about the energy transition that I find very interesting. He talked about the Stellantis investments and the spin-offs for Ontario.

Not only is the government spending billions of dollars to shift one of Quebec's flagship economic sectors, transport electrification, to Ontario, but it is doing so by trying to one-up the U.S. with investments and subsidies. That is what it is doing instead of developing the industry from the mine up and building up the entire supply chain for our mines, our regions. The government should be thinking about how it can ensure that economic development and a green economy are created at each stage. If it had done that, it could have saved money and jump-started a sustainable energy transition.

Right now, the government is subsidizing the top without building the base, and it is buying Chinese lithium. This is the result. What are this government's priorities when it comes to transport electrification? Electrification is the way to avoid the carbon tax.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the priority is to build in Canada. I spent five minutes of my 10-minute speech talking about Umicore, a multi-billion dollar plant that is being built right outside my riding, in the Conservative member's riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. It will build 800,000 car batteries per year.

There is also a lot of rhetoric. I got a kick out of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon when, in the previous question, he talked about Atlantic Canada, again trying to pigeonhole this as though it is something just about Atlantic Canada. Twice as many people in Ontario will benefit from the three-year cap on heating with oil than in Atlantic Canada. Does that change the narrative of the Conservatives? No, of course not, because it does not suit them right now. It would be better to make it seem as though there was some big deal that contributed to that announcement.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to point out that I believe there is an error in the wording of the motion. The motion calls on the Liberal government to cancel the April 1, 2024, carbon tax increase.

However, there is no carbon tax. It is actually a price on pollution. I believe that both the House and Canadians are being misled on this issue.

Why is it not a tax? For it to be a tax, the government would have to put the money into its coffers with a view to spending it on programs or investing it in the future of Canadians.

That is not what the price on pollution does. With the price on pollution, the government is only an intermediary, because the proceeds are returned to Canadians. It is a price mechanism, something that the Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman endorsed as an economic measure for fighting pollution.

How does this mechanism work in terms of carbon pricing? It is very interesting. It involves a little bit of magic. When a consumer goes to spend money and sees that the price is perhaps a little higher, they are not thinking about the quarterly deposit they will receive from the Government of Canada in their chequing account as compensation. They just look at the price and decide that, since it is a bit more expensive, they will consume a little less. That saves them money in the short term, and then, on January 1, April 1 and so forth, they realize that money has been deposited in their bank account.

They will feel doubly lucky, because they saved money at the pump and also got money from the government. That is how carbon pricing works, and it is the key to its effectiveness as a measure for fighting pollution, especially greenhouse gas emissions.

What is very frustrating about this debate, in addition to the fact that it is the same debate over and over again based on a very symbolic and superficial understanding of what the price on pollution is, are these flimsy conclusions that the official opposition wishes to draw about the impact of the price on pollution on inflation and, more specifically, on food prices. However, rigorous academic study after rigorous academic study has pointed to the fact that the impact of the price on pollution on food prices is extremely small.

Now, we know that the official opposition has no respect for the Bank of Canada and that it would like to take the Bank of Canada under its wing and dictate monetary policy, but it is an incredibly credible institution filled with some of the best economists in this country. What does the Bank of Canada say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and inflation? It says that the price on carbon contributes about 0.15 % to inflation overall.

The University of Calgary, is not, I might add for anyone who does not follow schools of thought and academic life in this country, what I would call a hotbed of socialism. What did the University of Calgary say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and food inflation? University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe estimates that the price on carbon I will call it, because I do not want to mislead people as it is not a tax, is responsible for less than 1% of grocery price increases. How did Professor Tombe come to that conclusion? Did he just pull a number out of the air the way the official opposition likes to do? No. He used a Statistics Canada modelling program. Again, we have some of the country's greatest econometric experts working at Statistics Canada, like we do at the Bank of Canada. I do not know if the official opposition members are calling into question the integrity and expertise of Statistics Canada, maybe they are, but I would say that the Statistics Canada modelling program is a credible instrument and that is what Professor Tombe was using.

He goes on to say that in Alberta, because this is very much focused in many ways on Alberta and the oil industry, the price on carbon has increased prices by about 0.3%, which is 30¢ on a $100 bill, in Manitoba it is 0.9% and in Ontario it is 0.4%. These are credible, rigorous academic studies. However, we do not get any of that from the official opposition; rather, we get this kind of false logic, like the shin bone is attached to the knee bone and the knee bone is attached to the thigh bone, etc. It starts with the idea that there is a price on carbon, which means it is going to cost more to drive a truck, or this and that, and eventually it is going to show up on the shelves. The fact of the matter is that is not real logic founded on a rigorous analysis.

The other point I would like to make is that the price of food has gone up. However, according to credible news media like CTV News, and an article posted on its website, there are a number of factors that are contributing to the high price of food.

The first is climate change. Devastating wildfires continue to rage across Canada, destroying forests and farmland. Let us use a bit of simplistic logic that maybe the official opposition can understand. If farmland is destroyed, what happens to the supply of food? It goes down. The Leader of the Opposition thinks of himself as a wonderful and great economist, but what happens when the supply of food goes down and the demand stays the same? What happens to the price? It goes up. That is the number one cause of rising food prices. It is basic logic.

The really interesting thing is that greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector are not regulated. There is no price on carbon on greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector. As a matter of fact, a lot of people have been writing to me saying that we have to price greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural lands, but we have not done that.

What is another aspect that is causing challenges to the supply of food? Can members guess what Ukraine has been called? It has been called the breadbasket of Europe. I think it is going through some tough times, which may be limiting the supply of wheat from that part of the world. Again, if we constrain supply in the face of a demand that is stable or even increasing, we get higher prices.

I do not know why the leader of the official opposition does not click into that. It is basic economics 101. Therefore, we have to look at these other causes. The price on carbon is not the cause of all the woes around the world and we have to stop saying that.

What the members of the official opposition like to do, over and again, through these opposition day motions is build straw men, which they then demolish on social media while pretending to be heroes. That is all this is about. It is all about social media hits.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of a very significant individual in my riding, Bob Gieselman, who passed away recently. Bob devoted a lot to the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and around in service to the community. My condolences to his family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

My hon. colleague said that we are having the same debate and that it is superficial and symbolic. What is not superficial and symbolic are the people who are writing me letters saying that they have to choose between heating and eating or that they cannot afford a $6 bag of lettuce. What are we supposed to be doing here if not talking about the issue of Canadian affordability?

I really take issue with the Liberals framing this as if there is nothing to see here. There is something to see here, which is that people cannot afford to live in Canada. The Liberals should be ashamed for ignoring that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my condolences to the hon. member on the loss of his constituent. I am glad that he took the opportunity to mention that. I am sure the constituent's family will appreciate that deeply.

The member was just not listening. We do not deny that the price of food is high. We are just reminding the member and his party that it is not because of the price on carbon. There is a war in Ukraine. There are wildfires and floods that are destroying farmland in Canada. These are the factors that are driving the price of food. Fortunately, food inflation is coming down to match general inflation. That is a good sign, but let us hope that continues.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that we are talking about the carbon tax today, because just this morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released the costing of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage.

How much will this measure cost over the next five years? It will cost approximately $5.5 billion.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me that it would be a far better idea to invest this money in true green energy than to try to convince us that oil can be environmentally friendly.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have not seen the report my colleague is talking about.

The Liberal government is obviously not trying to eliminate fossil fuels. We are going to have to live with that for a while yet.

Yes, there are clean energy sources. The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry was talking about green tidal energy. We have to invest, and the government is investing. There are technologies that are still in development, like what my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry was talking about.

The Bay of Fundy project did not fail because of federal government regulations. The problem is that it is very hard to reap the benefits of that kind of technology at this point in time. There are limits, but we have to keep investing. Unfortunately, we have to deal with fossil fuels for a while yet.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague, but I was a little frustrated this morning because in trying to use logic on a party leader who bases everything on a bumper sticker slogan, my colleague is wasting his efforts.

The issue at hand here is that the Leader of the Opposition is accusing the Liberals of not having an environmental plan, which I might agree with on most days, but there is no Conservative environmental plan other than letting the planet burn. What are the Conservatives willing to throw under the bus to let the planet burn right now in Alberta? Not a single member of the Alberta or Saskatchewan MPs have stood up about the climate disaster that is unfolding. Thirteen counties have declared environmental disasters from the drought. This is four years into a drought. There is no snow in Edmonton. The climate crisis and a burning planet are affecting farmers and not a single one of them would ever stand up and defend farmers from climate change. They would rather throw them under the bus so that Rich Kruger and Suncor can make more money. That is the Conservatives' environmental plan.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is totally correct. There was an article on the CBC website last night about how Alberta farmers are very worried about the loss of groundwater. Therefore, at some point, the Alberta farmers are going to go to see the Alberta government and say, “Look, we have a problem here. We know that the oil industry is important in our province, but think of us for a change.”

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the incomparable member for Mirabel.

Today I would like to address a serious problem. Canadians are being legally robbed of their savings as they struggle to make ends meet, pay all their bills and find housing. This legalized robbery in the context of the soaring cost of living and the affordability crisis involves the price of energy, the main cause of inflation.

We have to face the fact that carbon use is expensive. While exhausted and financially strapped Canadians are paying high prices, an elite group out of touch with the people is reaping the benefits and enjoying a privileged life. As citizens struggle to make ends meet, the oil and gas sector is making record profits. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, they raked in several billion dollars in profits, half of it in 2022 alone. Profits for 2022 are estimated at $270 billion. We should think about what this figure means.

These $270 billion went into the pockets of major companies, 70% of whose shareholders are foreign. Of course, these companies need the oil monarchy in Ottawa to provide them with lavish guarantees and hefty direct and indirect subsidies, which they could easily do without.

Of course, the Conservatives do not talk about this, since they have an incestuous relationship with the oil companies, which are awash in profits. Despite their rhetoric of common sense, the Conservatives, who have no plan to end our dependence on fossil fuels, prefer to blather on for the umpteenth time about the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec.

Let us be serious for a moment. If we want to talk about the real problem, we can talk about the six tax credits, worth a total of $83 billion by 2025, granted in the last two Liberal-NDP government budgets. In particular, two of these tax credits stand out. First, there is the clean technology investment tax credit, which, despite its name, will encourage increased bitumen extraction and gas exports. Then there is the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit, which helps oil companies pump out every last drop of oil by supporting an experimental technique that shows all the signs of being a greenwashing scheme.

This is not to mention the fact that the federal government nationalized the Trans Mountain pipeline, whose expansion will cost $30.9 billion, most of which will be paid for by taxpayers. This is nothing new. According to a report by Equiterre, in April 2019, Finance Canada and Environment Canada failed to keep their promise to cancel subsidies for fossil energies. According to Equiterre, they gave the oil companies $1.6 billion. In November 2018, the same group estimated that, between 2012 and 2017, Export Development Canada gave 12 times more money to fossil fuels than to clean energies.

Some people believe that Equiterre is an environmental group. Let us see what the International Monetary Fund has to say. In 2019, the IMF estimated that direct subsidies and indirect support to fossil fuels in Canada amounted to $54 billion in 2017. The problem is clear. It should jump out at anyone who has eyes to see.

While our fellow citizens are suffering from rampant inflation, wealthy oil and gas companies are benefiting, with the aid of the Liberals and Conservatives. All this is happening while scientists are saying that, if we want to be serious about it, if we want to be responsible, we should be leaving 80% of our oil underground. Moreover, more than 95% of Canadian oil comes from the tar sands, one of the most polluting oils on earth.

Climate change, which the Conservatives never speak of, is costing everyone. In 2025, it could cost Canada's and Quebec's economies $25 billion. In addition to being unfair and ecocidal, Canada's “everything for oil” religion is not even a good economic choice. It hampers the diversification of the Canadian economy. The exploitation of natural resources is closely linked to the decline in the manufacturing sector. Members might remember that there were hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in Quebec, jobs related to the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, which was itself linked to the increase in bitumen exports.

The question that arises is, how can we ease the financial burden on our fellow citizens?

Of course, we can listen to the Conservatives propose eliminating the so-called carbon tax in a motion that does not even define what that means. Let us not forget that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has its own carbon exchange system. In 2013, Quebec partnered with California, with which it shares a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, and there has been no negative impact so far. The measure was adopted under Jean Charest, aspiring leader of the Conservative Party. Because of this system, Quebec is not affected by the tax.

The other carbon policy, which some on that side of the House call a second tax on carbon, is not a tax at all because none of it goes to the government. Not a penny from the clean fuel regulations finds its way into government coffers. These regulations are nothing more than an update of the regulations adopted in 2010 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, under whom the current Conservative leader served as a parliamentary secretary.

There is only one difference between the two versions of the regulations. Instead of imposing an average, namely, the 5% ethanol content of the gasoline prescribed in the former Conservative version, the government is imposing an outcome. In practical terms, the new regulations require that each litre of gasoline produced in 2030 must generate 15% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than in 2019. That is all.

Unlike the previous version adopted under the Conservatives, the government is not telling the oil companies how to reduce their emissions. They can reduce the emissions they generate during their crude oil extraction or refining activities, use a cleaner type of oil that generates less pollution than oil sands during the refinery process, or mix more biofuels, like ethanol, in with the gasoline to reduce its oil content. All options are on the table. The choice is up to them.

The regulations have minimal, if any effect in Quebec. The Quebec government has already passed its Regulation respecting the integration of low-carbon-intensity fuel content into gasoline and diesel fuel, which already stipulates that fuel sold in Quebec must contain 15% biofuels. Just as they seem to do every single day, the Conservatives are once again proposing a measure that will increase pollution. This measure offers a bonus to those who heat with dirty fuels and offers nothing to those who do not pollute, such as people who heat with electricity or renewable sources.

That is unfair, because, on some level, it is primarily lower-income households that benefit from the carbon tax. The government has committed to returning fuel charge proceeds directly to individuals and families through climate action incentive payments. This fuel charge therefore benefits low-income households, since they get back more than they pay. In other words, suspending the carbon tax does not serve the most vulnerable.

Making up problems is not going to solve anything. Quebeckers have been relatively spared from the high cost of heating not because the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, but because they chose renewable energy, including for heating, a long time ago.

Canadian taxes are not the problem. It is the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that Ottawa is giving in direct or indirect subsidies to the oil and gas companies in western Canada that is the problem. Let us put an end to that. Let us come up with a serious energy transition plan. The economy and our planet will benefit from that. We will all come out ahead. That is what real common sense looks like.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the way in which the hon. member presented his case. He is really quite concerned about the effect of climate change on the country.

If, in fact, he thinks that the revenues from oil sands are, shall we say, problematic, is it his position that the transfer payments that go to Quebec under the revenues of the federal government should be reduced accordingly so that the position the hon. member is taking would have some consistency?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind my colleague that equalization payments are largely a myth. I would also like to invite him to read an excellent document that was released a few months ago on the finances of an independent Quebec, which shows that we would have more than enough money. What is more, our finances would not have to be administered by a state whose priorities are different from ours. For example, our money could be put toward the aerospace industry, renewable energy or the many other sectors that are completely ignored and neglected by Ottawa, unlike western Canada's oil industry and Ontario's auto industry.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about wanting to solve the environmental issues, but only from lens of what suits Quebec. It does not suit other places, such as Alberta, where the temperature was -50°C a few weeks ago. The carbon tax is not working. Emissions are not being reduced, and Canadians are paying more than they receive.

If the system is not working, does the member believe that we should continue with it, or should we halt it to move to another way of dealing with the environment?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful. I have repeatedly talked about the impact on the Canadian economy. It goes without saying that climate change is a global and therefore international issue, and that can pose a problem when one country's decisions impact all the others. That goes without saying.

I spent a lot of my speech explaining that the system does not work. The problem I have with this carbon tax is that it is a small measure with little or no impact. If there is an impact, it is not particularly negative. There is not much to it. In fact, the crux of the problem is the billions of dollars in funding that go to the oil and gas companies, which are raking in the profits. That is the problem. There are no real programs or real plans for energy transition. That is the crux of the problem.

The system does not work. Of course, for some it works very well. It is a system that favours only the wealthiest, an elite group. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not challenge that.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, people find it frustrating to pay higher bills when big oil CEOs are raking in the profits at their expense. Why does he think the Liberals and the Conservatives are refusing to make these CEOs pay their fair share and help put money back in people's pockets?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague on her excellent French. I was genuinely impressed. I think we should applaud her efforts. I do not know if she is currently learning French, and we will talk about that after, but kudos to her.

With that praise comes criticism, however. Unfortunately, I have to remind my colleague that she voted in favour of Liberal budgets full of even more goodies for oil companies. Nonetheless, I do agree that we need to be able to demand more of them and redistribute that to the people.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I felt a little uncomfortable giving a speech today. The House leader of the Bloc Québécois called me yesterday to tell me that the Conservatives would be moving a super original motion today on the carbon tax. I read the motion and told the House leader that the speech should be given by the member for Montarville, because he is the foreign affairs critic.

As we know, this whole issue does not really apply to Quebec. One day we will be our own country, and we will discuss this at the UN. For the time being, we have to debate it in other people's parliaments, but this does not apply to Quebec. I see it as a diplomatic issue, and anyone who knows me well knows that I am probably not the best person to engage in diplomacy; yet here I am, rising in the House today.

We are here to debate a motion that is, as usual, ridiculous. To be frank, the motion is utterly ridiculous. It is patently false. We do not know whether this motion stems from bad faith, incompetence or a combination of the two, as is often the case. The reason the Conservatives write these motions is to create an echo. It is so they can once again say that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the carbon tax. They are trying to create an echo, but the echo that comes from these Conservative motions is like any other echo. It is hollow. When someone stands on the edge of the Grand Canyon and shouts “hello”, it comes back as “hello, -o, -o, -o”. When we look at the Conservatives' motions, they talk about a first, second, third, fifth carbon tax. It is an echo, and it is hollow.

The Conservatives started with the first one. The first one was the real carbon tax. They fell on it like rabid animals. They did not know that it did not apply to Quebec. I guess they did not have the expertise. Mistakes happen. They began to backpedal. In politics, it can be hard to admit to being wrong. In time, they came to the conclusion that it was true that it did not apply to Quebec, so there would have to be a second carbon tax.

That was when they invented the second carbon tax, referring to the clean fuel regulations. Then they realized that Quebec already had its own regulations, that its regulations were already in effect, and that the federal regulations were for 2030. Nevertheless, they began saying that the price of gas would jump by 13¢ or 14¢ a litre. The price of gas did go up. Then they said that people would no longer be able to afford turkeys, so Thanksgiving would be ruined. The price of gas has dropped 20¢ since then. It even dropped on Thanksgiving. The Conservative leader and the members from Quebec were not there to say so, so the price went down. They looked silly, but they are resilient. We like them, really. They are resilient. Conservatives are tough.

They figured there must be a third carbon tax coming down the pike. To hear the Conservatives talk, when I buy a piece of furniture at Ikea, it must have been made in Alberta. Everything comes from Alberta. It is transportation, it is this, it is that, only now we have the figures for inflation. Now they are interested. They talk about it all the time. Inflation is one point higher in Quebec than in Alberta, but the federal carbon tax hurts Albertans more than anyone else.

Then they decided that they needed to come up with a fourth one. The fourth one was a good one. It did not last long, because we took care of it. We are onto them now. We have become experts at nipping this in the bud. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is the Conservative envoy to Quebec, a future minister if ever there were one. He is the opposition leader's Louis XIV in Quebec. He is the king. He told the House that it is true that Quebec has its own emissions permit system, but it is the federal government's fault that the cost of the permits has gone up in Quebec. We want to table a document to prove that this is not true, but he is opposing that. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles, the Quebec lieutenant, thinks there is a correlation. To him, there are more drownings in the summer because of ice-cream sales; the two go hand in hand. That is how it works, in his mind. We explained to him that emissions permits in Quebec are issued under a government order that predates the federal carbon tax. It is a government order. It was done with California, which is 10 times bigger than we are. It is consistent with our goal of reducing our emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels. The biggest factor driving the price of permits is demand from California.

It is not that I do not like Canada, but Californians could not care less about the federal government. It is the least of their problems. They buy permits, and that has an effect on the price. That is where things stand now. The next step, the sixth carbon tax, will be a world economic forum for Freemasons.

That is where things stand now. We are on the fifth or sixth carbon tax. I have lost track. I am not sure what number carbon tax we are up to. Now the carbon tax is no longer an environmental plan, but a tax plan. Incidentally, the translation is bad because the French version of the motion uses “mesure fiscale”, or tax measure, but the English one uses “tax plan”. “Tax measure” sounds milder in Quebec, whereas a “tax plan” sounds like something worth ranting about.

The Conservatives are saying that the carbon tax is a tax plan. That is what the motion says. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten about the “environmental” part of environmental taxation. That is understandable because they do not see any connection between the economy and the environment, innovation, the development of new technologies and collective prosperity. The Conservatives only understand the connection between two things: extraction and extraction. They can understand that one equals one. That is easy.

However, the Conservatives think taxation has no place in an environmental plan, except when they find themselves in a situation where they need tax credits for their buddies in Alberta. That, Quebeckers pay for. When the time comes for a carbon capture tax credit, when businesses need a tax credit from us, suddenly taxation is important. However, that is not a tax plan, no matter how much they rant and rave that it is.

When the conversation turns to a clean technology tax credit, when the Conservatives tell us that they would like Quebeckers' taxes to be used to fund small nuclear reactors so that we can stop using gas to process oil sands and instead take that gas, pump it through new pipelines to the port in British Columbia that is nearing completion, and then sell that gas, all with the support of taxation, they do not see that as a tax plan at all.

When it comes to tax credits for dirty hydrogen, which plan is it? All of a sudden, they see a connection between the environment and taxation.

However, when it comes to acknowledging the science that clearly links emissions reductions with carbon pricing in other provinces, when it comes to the system we have in Quebec, which uses very robust empirical evaluations, when it comes to the regime in British Columbia, when we know that trading emissions permits with Europe and the United States works, when it is time to acknowledge the science, the Conservatives absolutely never agree.

They say it is a tax plan. These are Conservatives who supposedly have faith in the market. The people on the right say the market works. The market sets a price, and people react to that price, until the environment is involved, that is. Then, suddenly, economics 101 goes by the board.

What do the Conservatives support time after time, especially the ones from Quebec whom we never see talking about this? Maybe it is because they are too embarrassed. Maybe it is because they are working on the eighth, ninth or tenth carbon tax, working ahead so they can give us all of them at once. What they support is a plan to help oil companies by taxing Quebeckers. As I have said, they are compulsive taxers.

We are talking $83 billion in subsidies for Alberta oil companies, paid for by Quebeckers through their taxes. Meanwhile, we have people waiting in hospital hallways and we are asking for way less than that in health transfers, but where are the Quebec Conservatives? They are nowhere to be seen. They are hiding. We do not see them.

Immigration and taking care of irregular migrants has cost Quebec $470 million, and the feds are supposed to cover that, yet they say they are going to give Quebec a mere $100 million and will not be paying Quebec's debt. None of the Quebec Conservatives are standing up because no expense is too great for oil companies, but any expense is too great when it comes to taking care of Quebeckers.

The Quebec Conservatives all think that they are going to become ministers. I do not know what they will be ministers of, and I would not want to be the one who has to make those decisions, but I will say that Quebeckers will have to pay dearly for those members' cabinet seats. The Conservatives have already started to abandon Quebeckers. They are good at that. I want to remind the House of a deadline that is coming up, when we will have to explain our platforms to Quebeckers and justify our actions to them. The Bloc Québécois will be able to say that we have been completely trustworthy.

Quebeckers are going to listen to what I just said about the Conservatives because they are a lot smarter than the members on this side of the House think.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member when he said that Canadians as a whole are smarter than what the Conservatives are giving them credit for. In fact, what we are seeing is a great con job by the Conservative Party on the issue of its so-called “first priority”, that being getting rid of the carbon tax.

The type of misinformation that is out there is quite significant. One of them is tying the price on carbon to inflation. Interestingly enough, when the issue was brought up with the Bank of Canada, Governor Macklem indicated, when referring to the carbon tax, that the “contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” That is incredible.

If we listen to the Conservatives' spin, one would think that it is the driving force of inflation in Canada. I wonder if the member would attempt to dispel that particular untruth that is being spread by the Conservative Party of Canada.