Bill C-234 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

This enactment amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the definition of eligible farming machinery and extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane.

Carbon Pricing

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as my father used to say, when someone points a finger, there are always three fingers pointing back at them.

When it came time to decrease funding to farmers, the Leader of the Opposition sat on his hands at the cabinet table. When it came time to increase funding to farmers, all Conservative MPs sat on their hands. On Bill C-234, if it was so important for the Leader of the Opposition, he should not have sat on his hands but worked a little harder.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a new term we could use tonight: “prince of darkness”, or something of darkness. Maybe we can use that new term.

In February 2022, the Conservative member for Huron—Bruce introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would also exempt natural gas and propane used on farms for essential tasks like drying grain and heating barns. A year later, in March 2023, it passed the House of Commons with full support from the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and a handful of Liberals. However, the bill is now in the Senate and has been there for some time. Then the Senate amended the bill and took out the exemption for buildings. This was a piece of legislation passed in the House through three readings and through committee, and it went to the Senate.

This is with respect to the exemption for farmers on carbon tax. These are the people who do not get a rebate. We hear all the time that the government is sending a rebate. I have talked to many people at farm operations, because my riding is a rural one, including last weekend at a meeting I had in the small community of Enchant. The farmers do not get a rebate, but they are paying a huge carbon tax. The bill has now been amended. I have the utility bills from one of those people, and for one their buildings, they paid $15,000 in carbon tax. This would have been exempted, but now the bill is sitting in the Senate, amended.

For the bill to get out of there, amended, it has to come back here and go through the process. Is there a likelihood of the bill's being passed before we get to another summer? The bill has been kicking around for two summers. For two summers, farmers across the country, from coast to coast, have been paying carbon tax on propane and natural gas for grain dryers and buildings. The bill was what we needed for our agricultural sector. Now, the Senate has amended it and taken out the exemption for buildings. Like I said, a constituent of mine paid $15,000 for carbon tax. It was not the price of the power and the electricity; it was carbon tax because they are using natural gas.

The bill is going to come back here. The delay costs the agriculture sector because of Prime Minister-appointed senators making the amendment to it. Let us understand that: It was Prime Minister-appointed senators who made this amendment. They knew what they were doing. They knew the delay that they were causing. This is hardship. The carbon tax allows no rebate to these kinds of farmers. They do not get the rebates that the government members constantly talk about. It is a travesty to our agricultural sector that this has happened.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his sincere words. In a past life, I had the pleasure of working with him, and I look forward to working collaboratively with him here.

The legislation the member mentioned is an important piece. There are currently exemptions, but so many costs are passed on to the farmers, who are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to this. I appreciate his support for Bill C-234, and I would encourage my hon. colleagues in the other place to quickly pass that legislation to expand the carbon tax exemption for farmers across Canada.

The last thing I will point out is that profits are not a bad thing. I think wealth creation is a good thing, and given that we are invested heavily in all of our pensions, we should want Canadian companies to succeed.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me welcome the member for Portage—Lisgar to the House. I also offer my sincere congratulations to him on the election of an NDP government in the wonderful province of Manitoba.

The member talked about the carbon tax a lot. We are very familiar with this at the agriculture committee. He knows as well as I do that there are exemptions in the existing act. He also knows that there is room for improvement, which is why I voted for Bill C-234.

However, what I never hear Conservatives talk about is that, over the last three years, we have seen the oil and gas industry increase their profit margin by over 1,000%. Why do Conservatives never talk about the gross profiteering of the oil and gas companies off the backs of working families right across this country from coast to coast to coast?

Carbon Pricing

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, on September 20, I rose to ask a question about how the carbon tax is impacting farmers. The minister responded by suggesting that somehow the carbon tax will stop natural disasters, which occur in this country and all around the world. The fact of the matter is this: The carbon tax has not done that, and that is because we live in a global environment where the carbon emissions from other countries, such as the carbon emissions of China, impact whether or not there are large carbon emissions going on in the world.

There is no such thing as a carbon dome covering and protecting Canada so that somehow if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while countries like China continue to put out more than double our total output in their year-over-year increases, the carbon tax is going to protect us. It is not going to protect us, and in fact it makes the cost of everything more expensive.

Farmers at the International Plowing Match were telling me that this is a huge challenge. However, what makes it worse is that when I raised this question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment suggested that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax and stated that they do not pay a carbon tax, even to dry grain. Then, when I suggested that he was wrong, he accused me of spreading misinformation. That is outrageous, because he is absolutely wrong. Farmers do pay a carbon tax to dry grain. Farmers do pay carbon taxes on all the inputs on the farm. The only thing they do not pay a carbon tax on is purple gas, which is exempt. However, the trucker who brings in that purple gas pays a carbon tax on the gas they use.

The parliamentary secretary is so woefully uninformed on his file that it is embarrassing. To accuse me of spreading misinformation when he did not know what he was talking about is deeply shameful, and the member should apologize.

If he spent five seconds talking to a farmer instead of blustering here in the House of Commons, he would know that farmers pay a carbon tax to dry grain. If they did not pay a carbon tax, why would Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels be in the Senate? Why would the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion?

The parliamentary secretary's lack of information and his audacity to accuse me of misinformation are exactly the reason we are in a mess in this country. The Liberals do not have a clue about what they are talking about.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Liberal government's Bill C- 56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

This is yet another half-baked, half-measure bill from the Prime Minister to solve an affordability crisis that he, himself, and his government have created. After eight years of inflationary taxes and out-of-control spending, Canadians have now found that they cannot afford the Liberal government. They cannot afford housing. They cannot afford fuel, and they certainly cannot afford food.

What makes this bill that much more frustrating is that the Liberals are adding more bureaucracy to try to solve a problem that they created, when there is actually a very quick measure they could enact today that would reduce costs for Canadians significantly, and that would be by eliminating the inflationary carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2. These two carbon taxes and the inflationary aspect of them are making life unaffordable for Canadians.

Today, we saw in a report by the Financial Post that their new initiative, the Canadian sustainability standards board, is actually going to exacerbate those costs on Canadians, especially when it comes to food costs. It is going to add additional bureaucracy to every industry and every commodity, asking them to identify the impact of carbon on every link in the supply chain. This is going to add so much red tape and bureaucracy, and an onus on every industry, manufacturing every product and growing every commodity, that it is going to make life that much more unaffordable.

The interesting thing is that the Liberals are implementing or imposing these punishing carbon taxes on, for example, agriculture, which is one of the industries that we are a leader in. We are world class in sustainability, in our emissions and in our ability to grow food with the lowest emissions in the world.

The data in painfully clear on the impact the Liberals' carbon tax 1 and 2 is having on Canadian farm families. According to the Canada food price index, a 5,000-acre farm would be paying $150,000 in carbon taxes every single year. There is not a farmer I know that could absorb those types of costs and still remain economically viable.

That is the question the Liberals always seem to forget. They talk about sustainability. I think they get a quarter every time they say it. However, they never talk about economic viability. When these new regulations and taxes are imposed on industry, agriculture or energy, it is impacting their ability to remain economically viable.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer just published a new report confirming the correlation between inflation in Canada and the suffocating carbon tax on our farmers. Diesel will go up 70¢ a litre. In many provinces, gas has already exceeded two dollars a litre.

When I was in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, in the GVA meeting with some farmers, it was $2.08 a litre for gas. It is unbelievable that the government is now expecting Canadians to absorb that and still be able to put food on the table and pay their mortgages. This year alone, the carbon tax collected from farmers, just from on-farm propane and natural gas, was $50 million.

I find it interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said in his speech on Thursday that he did not know why we were so excited, that the carbon tax does not impact farming. The statistics from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Canada food price index and just about every commodity group in the country say otherwise.

This is why we have brought forward Bill C-234, which would exempt the carbon tax from natural gas and propane because they are still paying the carbon tax on those two fossil fuels, and that is because there is no alternative. They need these fuels to heat and cool their barns, dry their grain and power their irrigation equipment. This is not something the Conservatives are tossing around, these are indeed the facts.

Those who think those numbers are bad can hold my jerry can. The newest Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the impact of the carbon tax on farming said that between this year and the year 2030, agriculture will be paying $1 billion in carbon taxes alone.

The Liberals are saying that these costs on farmers, which they do not even believe exist, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms they do exist, are not impacting the price of food and not the reason we are seeing these high costs at the grocery store shelves.

I do not know anyone, other than maybe those in the Liberal-NDP coalition, who thinks that adding taxes will somehow reduce prices. However, that is exactly what they are saying. As part of this discussion, the Prime Minister has threatened the CEOs of the major grocery chains in Canada, saying that, if they do not stabilize grocery prices by Thanksgiving, there will be tax consequences. He is threatening to increase taxes on the grocery store CEOs and the major chains in Canada.

Is there an issue with competition in Canada? Yes, I would agree with that. We need to do things to improve competition in Canada, which always brings down prices. However, do the government members honestly think and truly believe that if they increase taxes on Sobeys, Loblaws, Costco and Walmart, the companies are just going to absorb those additional costs? There is no scenario where an industry just says, “The government is right; we are going to pay more taxes, and thanks very much.” Of course they are not. They are going to pass them on to the consumers, and that is going to drive up costs even more.

I want to emphasize the real-life consequences these taxes are having on those whom we are relying on to grow the food that we use to feed our families; these growers certainly play a key role in Canada's ability to help feed the world. A fruit and vegetable grower in my riding showed me their power bills for the last few months. They were paying $5,000 a month in carbon taxes alone, plus $800 of GST on top of that carbon tax; it is a tax on a tax. The grower has now decided to close their market in the winter months because they simply cannot afford to stay open. That is fresh fruit and vegetables at a nearby farmers' market and grower, which my rural constituents were able to go to without having to drive into the city. That is now going to be closed, forcing constituents to drive even further. It makes a lot of sense if climate change and reducing emissions is their goal.

A farmer in southern Alberta told me he paid $140,000 in carbon taxes last year, meaning that he could not invest that money in new equipment, which would have been more energy efficient and more fuel efficient. More frustrating for this grower is that he was hoping to have that money to put aside for his daughter, who wants to take over the family farm. She would have been the fifth generation to take over that farm. Now, instead of having that money to invest in his operation, improve efficiency, reduce emissions and help the next generation, where has that gone? It has gone to the Liberal government into general revenue. In fact, again, if reducing emissions and addressing climate change is their ultimate goal, this is doing the exact opposite.

There is another interesting thing. The Liberals want to increase taxes on the grocery CEOs; however, many of the grocery stores in Canada are actually owned by local franchisees. I went to visit the operator at one of the larger Sobeys operations in my riding, to see how things were going. His energy bill has gone up $6,000 a month as a result of the carbon tax. He is trying to absorb those costs, because he is a local business owner. However, he says that, eventually, he is going to have to pass this on to the consumers; otherwise, it is going to have an impact on what he can pay his employees or what he can contribute to local community initiatives, service clubs, sports teams, youth organizations and all those things that business owners try to help support.

The Liberals think that these costs are just magically absorbed by those farmers and small business owners, but they are not; of course, these costs are passed on to the consumer. That is why we see apples up 61%, carrots up 72%, and oranges and potatoes up 76%, just in time for Thanksgiving. The Liberals need to realize that when they increase the tax on the farmer, trucker, manufacturer and retailer, those costs are passed directly on to the consumer. Canadians are paying the price for that.

We are seeing that with millions of Canadians. Seven million Canadians went to a food bank last year. In Alberta, food bank use is up 70%. The food bank in Calgary is supporting 700 families every single day. These are numbers that I know the operators of food banks across the country have never seen before.

In conclusion, if the Liberals really cared about grocery prices and family farms, they could do something right now: They could eliminate their carbon taxes and certainly their plans to quadruple the carbon tax. That, not more red tape and bureaucracy, would make food more affordable for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to meet with my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss and debate a motion moved by the Conservative Party for their opposition day. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with my Conservative colleagues on their proposals because it is an opportunity to understand their position, their priorities and their vision for Canada.

I am not usually one to get upset, but unfortunately, most of the proposals they have made over the past few years have made me sad because they are bad for Canada. Today, we are studying a motion on the carbon pricing. More specifically, the Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill to eliminate all carbon pricing to lower the price of gas, groceries and heating.

I will begin by explaining why the government put a price on carbon.

The threat posed by climate change is very real. It is not a problem that is only going to happen in the future. It is happening now. All of our regions felt it this summer when we had the worst wildfire season in the history of Canada. There has also been flooding across the country, particularly in my riding of Kings—Hants. What is more, the frequency and intensity of storms is definitely a challenge for all Canadians. It is a challenge for everyone. We are familiar with this reality.

The initiatives put in place by the government and all parliamentarians in the House are for our children and grandchildren. Of course, we also answered questions today about changes in practice and other initiatives because climate change is real. It is happening right now.

I want to highlight that there are 77 carbon pricing initiatives around the world. I have had the opportunity to go to the World Bank site, and people can actually look at where they exist in the world and what types of initiatives other countries, other jurisdictions, have taken on. It is not as though Canada is the only country in the world that has a price on carbon. There are many other countries that go that way.

The Conservatives like to draw attention to carbon pricing. Nowhere did the Government of Canada, on this side, ever suggest that carbon pricing alone is going to be a silver bullet mechanism to help solve climate change. In fact, it is one mechanism among many that this government has presented. However, as I have said and perhaps teased some of my Conservative colleagues opposite on, the idea of introducing a price signal into the market and letting the market respond accordingly is inherently a small-c conservative principle.

I asked the member for Calgary Forest Lawn about the fact that there are projects across this country from companies that are responding to the price signal and driving really important innovation. The Conservatives like to talk about the slogan “technology, not taxes”, and it is indeed a slogan because they have no evidence of how they are going to incentivize the private sector and our great Canadian companies to make innovations and drive transitional change. Billions of dollars in this country are premised on that, and not only do companies now understand that it is in their best interests to do this because it is where there are generational opportunities, but of course they want to get around the price signal.

The Conservatives stand here today and do not signal that they are willing to support any form of carbon pricing in this country. That is problematic because billions of dollars of investment in this country rest upon that. Indeed, I will not suggest that we have it perfect, and I will get into that in my remarks, but the Conservatives do not offer a compelling alternative whatsoever. They just simply oppose without putting forward any solutions of their own.

From a political perspective, I am curious about and interested in this motion, particularly the way it is worded. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are fighting. The Conservatives named the Bloc Québécois in the text of their motion. I think there must be some kind of argument going on between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Perhaps the alliance between the two parties has started to break down because of the Conservatives' actions. We will see, but that is what I think is happening right now.

I want to start with the clean fuel standard. I note this initiative just so that all my colleagues, Canadians watching at home and perhaps people here in the gallery can understand what it is. The clean fuel standard is an initiative to reduce the carbon intensity in the fuels that we use. There have been other initiatives throughout time that I would say are similar to it. For example, there were times that we moved on regulations to remove lead from the fuel we use in our cars. I believe that initiative was championed by the Mulroney government some years ago, back when the Conservatives were progressive and we had actual action on climate and environmental initiatives coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. However, indeed, it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I will continue to remind Canadians that there is a difference. My constituents remind me every day that there is a big difference between the predecessor party that someone like Scott Brison was elected to in 1997 and what the Conservative Party of Canada has become today.

This is the initiative: to decarbonize our fuels. We are essentially asking oil and gas refiners in Canada to do that. They can do so with a number of different initiatives. They can add biofuels into the content of their fuels. They can work with farmers. There are tremendous opportunities in the agriculture sector to do offsets through credits. They can work on putting out charging stations. They can put home heating pump programs in place to demonstrate that they are getting the carbon intensity of their fuel down. There are a ton of options.

I want to talk about the projects. The Conservatives often talk about the cost. Indeed, they have in the text of this motion “17 cents per litre”. The parliamentary budget office has said that perhaps in 10 to 12 years there will be a 17¢ cost. In Nova Scotia, that was three cents a litre this summer. Yes, the program is not designed to rebate, but the program also drives industrial action. For example, the Conservatives have not stepped up today and talked about Come By Chance, the sustainable aviation fuel facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 87 million dollars' worth of investment in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It matters. The Conservatives have not talked about the electrolyzer. I have to be honest: I do not know what that is, but Irving Oil knows that it matters to its clean energy future. It has invested $90 million in it as part of the hydrogen strategy.

I was out in Regina, Saskatchewan. Perhaps a Saskatchewan member of Parliament will engage with me on this. A big billion-dollar co-operative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help drive its initiatives, in part because of the clean fuel standard. However, the Conservatives never talk about that, and it is important to note it.

The Conservatives are concerned about the three cents a litre in Nova Scotia, and I do not want to sound dismissive; I know every penny matters right now. The affordability question is an important one. However, if the Conservatives want to highlight the three-cents-a-litre increase on gasoline in Nova Scotia as a result of the clean fuel standard, they also need to highlight the major industrial investments being made in the Atlantic region. Maybe, as I have done publicly, they could encourage the provinces to see that, while the program was not designed to rebate, provinces have more money in their treasuries as a result of these major industrial projects and could reduce the provincial gas tax to make sure that is taken care of. They could do that. These are some suggestions that I offer to my Conservative colleagues.

The text of the motion is inherently, and I better not use the word “misleading”, but I have problems with the contents and the way the motion is written. For example, on 17¢ litre, the Conservatives do not give any context to the reader at home about what that means. They talk about things such as quadrupling to 61¢, and they give no context.

It was tripling just a few months ago. We would hear Conservative members, like a flock of crows, saying, “triple, triple, triple”, and we heard that for months. I guess now they are going to have to say “quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple”. I do not know how it has changed, but it has changed. They play a little loose and fast with the facts.

Again, the question around affordability and the question about whether or not we can look at adjusting measures under the carbon price is fair game. I am there, and I am going to get to that in my speech, but it is the idea that somehow they just basically put this out that I have problems with it.

The member for Calgary Forest Lawn stood up in this House a few speeches ago and said that the carbon price applies to a tractor driving on a farm. That is fundamentally untrue. If the Conservatives want to suggest that the carbon price applies to grain drying and that it should be removed, then yes, that is factually correct. They can go there. I have stood here and voted for the bill that came forward, Bill C-234.

However, we have to keep the debate in some realm of fact. It is like we are in a post-truth era, when people get up to say anything. I know we can have different perspectives on this, and I know that there is a range of debate, but we have to keep this in the confines of what is actually real.

On that, as we have talked about the price of fuel, groceries and home heating, I have an article from the National Post. I know that the Conservatives read the National Post because, of course, it is a bit more conservative leaning. I think some of it is fair. I read it too. The article is from September 21, 2023, so not that long ago, and I would encourage all members of the House to read it. There was a question about how much the carbon price contributes to the things the Conservatives are talking about today. I will read from the article, which I am happy to table later if I get unanimous consent. It says that the Bank of Canada estimates that 0.15% of inflation is tied to carbon pricing. Yes, there is some impact, but what we do not talk about, of course, is that the money is being rebated back to households.

The article also says that the carbon price contributes to less than 1% of the cost of groceries. When we look at what the Conservatives are calling for, yes, every dollar matters, but when we talk about this being a mechanism to drive some of those industrial projects I talked about earlier, that is extremely important. In fact, Trevor Tombe, who is an economist from Alberta, cites that it is 30¢ on every $100 grocery bill.

This is an important question, but the Conservatives are essentially calling for a reduction of 30¢ on every $100 that is spent on groceries in this country. I think they should join us in other initiatives that really matter for being helpful support: child care, the Canada child benefit and supports for seniors. There are a lot of different initiatives that they can get on board with. I am not so convinced that this one alone would solve the question of affordability.

I have talked about carbon pricing as it relates to major industrial projects, and I think I have exhausted that one. However, I look forward to my hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame standing up. We will have a great debate on whether or not that matters to his province, and we will get that on the record.

I want to talk about the position of Atlantic MPs, because we Liberal Atlantic MPs are specifically noted in the text of the motion before us. I cannot speak for every one of my Atlantic Liberal colleagues, as that would be inappropriate, but I will speak as one Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament.

Unlike what the leader of the official opposition had to say in question period today, I am not against carbon pricing. I am calling on this government to have adjustments to its approach on the federal backstop.

Unlike my Conservative colleagues, who just want to burn it down and say, “No, this is terrible”, but offer no solutions, I am trying to be constructive in both my comments here in the House, anything I say publicly, and what I say to my constituents on the intent of the policy. I go back to climate change and the generational challenge that we have before us.

This government is trying to move in the right direction, and the intent is the right one, but I think there are a couple of things that need to be adjusted. I am happy to talk about them.

First of all, the definition of what qualifies as a rural community has to be re-examined. Right now, if one lives in a census metropolitan area versus if one is outside defines whether one is urban or rural. We know the country is a bit more nuanced than that. There is an opportunity to re-evaluate that. There are some communities that may be within a CMA but are inherently and objectively rural communities. I have said that before and will continue to say it.

The rural rebate provided for constituents outside of those CMAs could be examined and could be increased, and not because rural Canadians do not want to be a part of the fight on climate change. We have to make sure there is a difference between the lived realities in urban and rural areas.

On affordability of home heating, I want to note that this government put $118 million into Atlantic Canada in October. We have not heard one single mention of that from the Conservative benches. It is a program that makes a difference on energy efficiency, and it is a program that makes a difference on home heating oil usage. It is good for the environment, but particularly to the intent of this bill, it is really important for affordability. There was not one word mentioned on that.

There has to be more time for those programs to work out, and I made it very clear that I hope the government will consider exempting or otherwise indemnifying individuals until such time that the merits of that program to help people get transitioned off can be in place.

The last thing I would say is we need to continue to focus on the supply side with, for example, EV charging stations and maybe perhaps more of an emphasis on the heat pump program. I have talked to the member for Long Range Mountains, and I know in Newfoundland and Labrador there is some work that has to be done on electricity upgrades to ensure the heat pumps can actually function and we can move forward. However, this is all really good for focusing on affordability and also tackling the issue of climate change. That is my proposition, which is that it is not mutually exclusive. These things need to happen at the same time.

I want to go to Bill C-49. The Conservatives are going to roll their eyes because I have been at them over the last week, but I am still perplexed as to why the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in this country, is opposing a bill that is supported by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the clean energy sector, indigenous communities and business stakeholders. We are engaging with fisheries, and I say that because I can image the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is going to ask about the fisheries. They are extremely important stakeholders who deserve to be and are part of that conversation.

Everyone is on board, this is the way to enable it, yet Conservatives stand in opposition. They have something to answer to Atlantic Canadians on that question because they are standing against the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They talk about the technology, the future of renewable energy in Atlantic Canada, not taxes, but they will not even let the technology drive forward. It is so hypocritical.

I have really enjoyed engaging in this. I cannot wait for questions. I am going to move quickly so we can get as many members in as possible.

To conclude, carbon pricing is an initiative that is implemented around the world to help create a mechanism to drive change. This government is focused on investing on the supply side to help people make that change. We have made sure, in the way the program is designed, that money goes back disproportionately to households to help protect them.

I have talked about the statistics, and about how much carbon pricing, according to the Bank of Canada and according to economists in the National Post, a paper I hope the Conservatives read, is contributing very little to the overall things they are talking about here today.

I have explained my position on carbon pricing. I believe in the intent. I believe in the inherent nature of why we are doing this. However, I am calling for adjustments. I stand here proud, as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, recognizing that, for the constituents I represent, the national program needs to be adjusted to better reflect their reality. I am offering solutions. I look across the way, and I see very little in terms of solutions.

On a bill that represents billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada's economy, let us forget the fact that this represents an ability to decarbonize our electricity grid and perhaps provide power to my good friends over in Quebec through Atlantic Canada. This is about jobs, prosperity and great economic opportunities for communities. The Conservatives continue to stand against that.

I look forward to a member of Parliament from the Conservative caucus of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia getting up and going on the record here today and explaining to their constituents why they are standing in the way of billions of dollars of opportunities, and I think I am going to get that answer right now.

Carbon Tax

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, families in my riding and across Canada are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living has increased dramatically over the last eight years because of the government's mismanagement and punitive carbon tax.

Conservatives care about the environment. There are many ways to fight climate change without resorting to a carbon tax that increases the price of everything. Our farms, processing plants and shipping companies have to take on this extra cost, which is then passed on to consumers.

Liberal and Bloc Québécois members want to radically increase the tax. Our common sense Conservative approach is to completely axe the carbon tax to give a break to families and farmers and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using science. With legislation like Bill C-234 and today's opposition motion, Conservatives will continue to defend the interests of Canadian farmers and families.

Let us come together and axe the carbon tax so that Canadians can buy food, have a home and bring home a bigger paycheque.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to make my colleague understand.

In York—Simcoe, people feel that they are on the outside looking in. They are paying the carbon tax, and right now they feel like they are subsidizing China to produce. They are looking around and saying to me, “Scot, we have got onions coming in from Egypt and Morocco. We are losing our competitive edge internationally.” This has got my farmers very worried. The government could have passed Bill C-234 for farmers, and that would have made a huge difference to grocery prices. Farmers are going to have to dry their grain and their beans. Half of my riding is on propane, half on natural gas. We want the infrastructure, and the carbon tax is not working for the people of York—Simcoe.

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an immense privilege to be able to join the debate here tonight and bring the perspective of my constituents of Kings—Hants. To those who are still watching at home as we approach 11 o'clock eastern time, we are talking today about amending the Standing Orders.

The Standing Orders are the guidelines or rules of how Parliament actually operates. Back when I was elected in this place, in 2019, I was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed new member of Parliament. I had about 12 weeks. The member for Kingston and the Islands has some concern about the way I framed that.

However, as a new member of Parliament, I was here, I was excited and I was finding my way around this place. Then, of course, the pandemic came. I never had the chance to come back in person until after the 2021 election. There was a large period of uncertainty. I remember having conversations with colleagues in March 2020, saying that we were going to go home for a couple of weeks and suspecting we would be back in April. That is not how it played out. Obviously we did not know the severity of what we were dealing with.

When I think back to the 43rd Parliament, had we not adopted some of these provisions, I would not have had the ability to bring my voice to the institution that is the House of Commons and that is Parliament. It also gave reflection for all 338 members of Parliament in this place about how we could modernize the tools to make sure that we are effective representatives for our constituents here in this place.

However, the conversation has to start with, what is the role of a member of Parliament? What do our constituents expect us to do? If I was to go survey the doorsteps in Kings—Hants, many would not necessarily know exactly what I do in Ottawa every day. They would know that I speak in this place at certain times. They may know that I am part of committees. They do not necessarily know the full scope.

We certainly try to share information and talk about the work I am doing in a legislative sense, the priorities I am trying to encourage the government to take up, what the government is taking on, but there is a lot that goes into being a member of Parliament. Part of it is visibility. I represent a rural riding of nearly 5,000 square kilometres. Part of my role is being visible in my riding to have the conversations with my constituents so I can bring their perspective back to this place.

There are parts of my riding that, frankly, it is very difficult to get to in a given calendar year. We sit in Parliament six months a year. I do not begrudge that reality. I think it is good. It is important that we have robust debate, that we have a democratic process through committees and through legislative means, but the reality is, with the size of the riding that I have, it is difficult to do.

When we look at what the government House leader has tabled as a permanent change to the Standing Orders, it allows us to function, similar to what we have done post-pandemic, which is to allow there to be a virtual option for members of Parliament to use.

I remember a year ago when we were having this conversation about the extension within a year, there were certainly concerns from the opposition bench about ministerial accountability and about making sure that members of Parliament are in this place. What I have observed in that year since then is, by and large, members of Parliament are here in the House. There are certain exceptions.

We saw the member for Labrador, for example. She had a very moving S.O. 31 today. She had to go through a really difficult health challenge. We are proud of what she has done. Rightfully so, she took some time away from her role as a member of Parliament, but she would have had the ability to participate notwithstanding that her health required her to be in another part of the country. She could not have physically been in this place.

We can look at the ways we could use the tools available to us. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talked about the virtual voting tool. I agree with it. I have used it very sparingly, but there have been two instances in the last year where I have chosen to use the virtual option as a way to be able to participate in this place.

Madam Speaker, I believe you were at the national caucus last year in New Brunswick and would know that part of the bargain with my wife, for me to join this place, was that we had to get a Bernese mountain dog. Sadly, at Christmastime 2022, we found out that our Bernese mountain dog had developed bone cancer. He sadly passed away early in 2023, around late February, early March.

I ended up going home to spend time with my wife. I know it is not a child, but he was our fur baby, he was our guy. That same day that we were putting our dog down, Bill C-234, which is a really important piece of legislation that is now before the Senate, was up for debate. I went home to be with my family. I had the opportunity to still participate and give my perspective as the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants and to bring the perspective of my constituents to this place because of those virtual tools. I would not have had that ability had these rules not been in place.

When we look at the whole, in terms of the balance between the work that members of Parliament have to do in Ottawa in terms of their legislative function in the House and in committees versus the role of being back there and in front of constituents, hearing the concerns and driving certain initiatives, whether on projects or case files, constituents want to see us at home. They want to see us being able to make things happen for our community. I do not think they are necessarily troubled if on an odd occasion a member of Parliament will use these tools.

Therefore, I am in support of what the government House leader has put forward. What this House could consider in the days ahead is if we are concerned, whether the opposition or a majority of members of Parliament, about the use of these tools and whether they are being used in a way that is not bringing us together in the House in the way that it should. Look, it is pretty lively in any given question period when I sit in here. There is usually a pretty good quorum. There may be a few seats of members of Parliament who are not there, but even before these rules were in place there would have been instances where members of Parliament were travelling and were not able to be in the House physically.

On the whole, there is merit to what is being discussed. It is a way for members of Parliament to be able to balance their rigid duties here in the House but also make sure that they are being true and honest, and not only to the constituency concerns but to family concerns.

I had the opportunity to read Andrew Coyne's article in The Globe and Mail. Of course, he had suggested that this is not a great step, moving forward. My concern with his article is that he suggests that members of Parliament do not want to show up in this place.

I want to be here because I agree with some of the comments that have been made tonight. We cannot replicate the ability to participate in a human-to-human interaction here in the House, to be able to go over and talk to a colleague across the way and to be able to pull aside a minister and have a conversation on something that matters. That still matters and if one wants to be an effective member of Parliament they will show up to this place. If they choose to use the virtual tools in a way that is not the way that they should be used, in terms of their never showing up to this place, well the opposition, the media and their own constituents will hold them to account and start asking questions as to why they are not in this place. Absent a reasonable excuse as to why a member may be using those, there are enough mechanisms for us to hold members of Parliament to account and the fact that they are here.

Again, one was a family issue. The other was that I had a grandmother who was ill. Thankfully, she has come through that period. I wanted to go home. I wanted to be there in that moment. I would not have had the opportunity to balance my parliamentary duties and also be a good grandson at that time. Let us not have this dichotomy where we suggest the only way to be a good member of Parliament is that we have to be physically in Ottawa for every single thing that we do in a parliamentary sense.

The last thing I want to address is the provision that it would actually require committee chairs to chair the committee in person. I fundamentally agree with this. I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Any time I cannot be in Ottawa, I give way to my vice-chair, the hon. member for Foothills, because I know at the end of the day it is better to conduct a meeting when we can actually work alongside our clerk. There are a number of challenges in trying to be able to read a room and in trying to be able to facilitate a meeting when we are thousands of miles away. That is a reasonable compromise.

My last suggestion would be that as we move forward in this place and we start to identify issues, we can come back and address them, similar to what was done on the committee chair piece and their being in the room. That is a reasonable compromise. Let us move forward. Let us continue to drive important changes to how our Parliament works.

Sitting Resumed

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise to speak on behalf of the people of northern Saskatchewan. Debates such as this on Bill C-47 are good opportunities for members of Parliament to bring their own unique backgrounds and perspectives to the House. As a former accountant and mayor, members can imagine that I have dealt with a few budgets and many numbers in my day. I want to spend the first few minutes tonight talking about a few of these numbers, some very big numbers.

In 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, Canada's national debt was $612 billion. This budget projects Canada's debt to be $1.22 trillion by next March, which is $81,000 per Canadian household, and it will reach $1.3 trillion by 2028. A simple fact is that the Prime Minister has accumulated more debt in eight years than all of Canada's previous prime ministers combined.

How did we get here? In 2015, the total expenditures of the government were $280 billion. This budget again calls for billions of dollars in new spending. The Prime Minister simply cannot help himself. This past year, total expenditures were $480 billion, and this budget projects to start at $497 billion and rise to $557 billion by 2027-28. That is an average of $526 billion in each of the next five years. That is also $246 billion per year or 88% greater than expenditures were in 2015.

If this is what the finance minister meant when she said, “we will review and reduce government spending, because that is the responsible thing to do”, I would hate to see what the irresponsible thing looks like.

I have a couple more numbers. Canada will have accumulated over $700 billion of new debt under the Prime Minister by 2028. As projected, the cost of interest on that debt will rise to over $50 billion per year. That is more than a 100% increase over 2021 and 2022, and it would then become about 10% of the total expenditures of the government. If I had run my accounting practice for the little City of Meadow Lake the way the Liberal government has run Canada's finances, I would have been out of business and run out of office.

Let us consider some promises made in 2015. First, the Liberal Party said it would run small deficits and return Canada's finances back to balance in 2019. I hate to break it to the members opposite, but not only did the Prime Minister overspend this promise by about $700 billion, but the budget was never balanced and there is no plan to ever balance it. It is no wonder that record numbers of Canadians no longer trust their government institutions.

Second, the finance minister talked a lot about the declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This was her fiscal anchor. She said, “This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” That sounds like another promise. I hate to once again break it to colleagues opposite, but the debt-to-GDP ratio has risen every year since the government was first elected in 2015 and is projected to rise again in the coming year. When the Prime Minister and finance minister make promises about debt and deficits, forgive me if I do not hold my breath.

Sometimes one must invest in things to be successful, so it is important to measure what one gets in return for choosing debt and increasing spending. Let us consider the state of Canada after eight years of out-of-control Liberal spending and inflationary deficits. Food price inflation is at a 40-year high. Nearly half of Canadians feel they are less than $200 from insolvency. One in five Canadians is skipping meals to reduce the cost of food, and 1.5 million people used food banks in a single month. The average cost of housing, both to rent and purchase, has doubled since 2015. This is the record of the Liberal government and the measures it is proposing in budget 2023 will, in fact, make the situation worse for Canadians by pouring another $67 billion of new deficit spending fuel on the flames of inflation.

I am very proud of coming from northern Saskatchewan. I believe it is an area that is a very good benchmark to measure how Canada's economy is performing. It is a region that has many important sectors of our economy: mining, forestry, agriculture, oil and gas, tourism, etc. It is also home to a unique cross-section of communities and people, communities and people that, frankly, should be thriving. Instead, everywhere I visit when I go home, people speak about how frustrated and desperate they are with the current economic situation.

Municipalities are struggling. The cost of much-needed infrastructure projects has ballooned over the last few years. Whether it be upgrading a sewer line, building a recreation complex or improving a street, community leaders are being tasked to do more with less. The result is that not only do they have to do the heavy lifting for their people, but the conditions under which they are operating keep getting worse due to the economic policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

These same policies are negatively impacting small businesses in northern Saskatchewan. This winter, I was talking to a business owner. He supplies people living in remote and rural communities with home heating fuel. He described to me the difficult position he was in due to the rising cost of this home heating fuel. His customers were either being forced to buy very small amounts, or they were pleading with him to extend credit until they could pay. They were having to choose between feeding their families or living without heat in the middle of a northern Saskatchewan winter, and he was having to choose between possibly losing money or seeing these families live without heat. That is the choice that this small business owner was facing because of the NDP-Liberal coalition nightmare.

Small business owners are also continually telling me how the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural and remote areas like northern Saskatchewan. This is becoming a very serious situation for them. Not only are they dealing with a labour shortage crisis, but due to the rising carbon tax they are forced to increase prices. Now the costly coalition is adding a second carbon tax that will ultimately add 61¢ per litre to the cost of fuel.

Everything, everywhere in northern Saskatchewan must be trucked. There is no other option. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this will cost the average household in Saskatchewan $2,840 per year. Increasing taxes at a time when people are struggling to get by is not a recipe for economic success. Is it any wonder that the people I talk to are fed up?

That anger can also be felt when I talk to farmers back home. The government members seem to forget that agriculture is the economic backbone of Canada. A stabilizing sector and one that provides the food we all rely on deserves better from its government. Let us imagine being the Minister of Agriculture in Canada and voting against Bill C-234, a bill that would give farmers carbon tax exemptions to produce the food we need. If the minister will not stand up at the cabinet table for farmers, who will?

Let us face it. When it comes to agriculture, these Liberals have become the living definition of biting the hand that feeds them. In a country that feeds the world, Canada is now a place where people cannot afford food. For many people in northern Saskatchewan who were already struggling with the increased cost of living, the skyrocketing price of food has become a crisis.

“This isn't working” are the words of a food bank chair from northern Saskatchewan, who adds, “Everything is increasing—gas, rent, food, heat.... I just don’t know how people are supposed to manage.” The food bank's monthly food budget is $5,000, and it now provides half the number of food hampers that it did just three years ago. The Liberals' mismanagement of the economy, assisted by their NDP enablers, has created conditions that directly harm the most vulnerable in our communities the most.

All of this is while the people from northern Saskatchewan and Canada have a Prime Minister who spends $6,000 a night on a hotel in London, but would not admit to it for months and still takes no responsibility; a Prime Minister who vacations in Jamaica at a luxurious estate of Trudeau Foundation donors; a Prime Minister who spends $8,000 a month on groceries; a Prime Minister who is embroiled in a foreign election interference scandal and uses Trudeau Foundation members and friends to investigate; a Prime Minister who named an interim Ethics Commissioner who is the sister-in-law to a cabinet minister, who is also a long-time family friend, to replace the former commissioner who grew so frustrated by the continued Liberal ethical lapses that he finally walked away. This is not leadership by any measure at any time in our history.

Budget 2023 is not an economic document. It is the political document of a government led by a Prime Minister who has chosen power over principle.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to what the Leader of the Opposition said at the beginning of his speech, nine out of 10 young people believe they will have difficulty buying a house and becoming homeowners. That is certainly true. We need to take action on that and develop social housing, among other things.

However, that is not today's topic. We are talking about the carbon tax and the fact that the Conservative Party is constantly calling for all environmental measures to be completely abolished. He talks as if everyone else in the House of Commons is completely unreasonable and out of touch, when, in my opinion, it is quite the opposite.

My question for the Leader of the Opposition is this. Does he recognize that members of the House are capable of taking reasonable action, by voting in favour of Bill C-234, for example? I asked the question this morning and did not get an answer. Does he agree that we were reasonable in voting for Bill C‑234?

What is he going to do for the 10 out of 10 young people who are asking us to take action on climate change?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I wish the Conservative Party would stop with the populism. They have been shouting at us for almost a year, for example, that the government has been in power for eight years, when it will actually be eight years in October. Of course, if they say it enough times, it will eventually be true.

Today, all sorts of things are being said. Puns are being made with the Prime Minister's first name. All day, we hear talk about “common sense”. A person can claim that something is “common sense” all day long, but it has to be put into practice all year long.

Would my colleague not agree that people can show “common sense” but still take moderate measures to ease the impact of the carbon tax, the way that Bill C‑234 does?

I am quite proud of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We reached a reasonable comprise to help people through the transition. Does my colleague acknowledge this? This is my first question.

My second question is: What will the Conservative Party do to address climate change? When will it realize that climate change exists? There are wildfires burning now.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this House representing the great hard-working people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

As parliamentarians, we sometimes have to deal with unpleasant situations, like today, when unfortunately I have to critique the Liberal government's latest inflationary budget. Let me state the dismal facts that confront Canadians. This budget is set to increase the national debt to a record of $1.3 trillion. The interest payments alone on this debt will reach $50 billion, which is $10 billion more than Canada spends on national defence.

The government's revenue, or taxes on Canadians, has nearly doubled since the Liberals took office eight years ago. In other words, the finance minister has managed to create a budget with both record revenue and record deficits. This record spending will only throw gasoline on the inflationary fire that Canadians are already struggling with. It will not help people who are struggling to get by.

Our party had three demands of this budget, none of which have been met. First, we wanted to help Canadians bring home better paycheques with lower taxes and for the government to scrap the carbon tax. Instead, the Liberals tripled down on higher taxes by tripling their carbon tax earlier this month.

As the PBO reported, this tax will cost the average family far more than what they get back in rebates. Here is the simple equation. In Saskatchewan, the average household will spend an additional $410 this year beyond the $1,781 they get back. Let me say that again. In order to get $1,781 in rebates, they will need to spend $2,191. I have to ask if this is the new math kids are doing in school, because it does not work.

Let me state the facts. The government is putting a price on people with this carbon tax. Liberal inflationary spending has also caused the price of food and groceries to skyrocket. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. People are going to food banks who have never gone before. We are blessed to live in a country with an abundance of natural resources and agricultural goods, and this should never happen.

“Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend over $1,000 more on food this year. That is nearly $600 more than the grocery rebate announced in this budget. Here is the equation: spend $1,000 and get $400 back. It is bad math.

Let me be clear. Not everyone qualifies for this rebate; most do not. Add to the equation I just shared that a large majority of Canadians will continue to struggle with the cost of food, along with the ever-rising carbon tax, with no help from the government. This compounds the cost of living crisis all Canadians are facing. This is after yet another hike in payroll taxes. Overall, the average Canadian will see another $305 deducted from their pay. They take home less and pay more.

Canadians are slowly getting their pockets picked by the Liberal government. The government's grocery rebate is simply giving money back to Canadians that has already been clawed away from them with tax hikes. It will not solve the cost of living crisis. The government is forcing Canadians to be dependant on it. It taxes them and gives them rebates when it sees fit, instead of trusting Canadians with their own hard-earned money.

Conservatives demanded that the government end inflationary debt and deficits that drive up inflation and interest rates. Obviously, this condition was not met, and I would have been absolutely stunned if it had been. After all, the Prime Minister has added more debt than all other prime ministers combined and has no plan to balance the budget and control his inflationary deficits.

Our national debt this year is projected to reach $1.2 trillion. To put that in perspective, that is nearly $81,000 of debt per household. The fall economic statement tabled just a few months ago projected a $4.5-billion surplus in 2027-28. Now that is all gone, with more massive deficits years into the future.

In last year's budget, the finance minister said that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was her fiscal anchor and that this number must decline for Canada's finances to be sustainable. She said:

...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.

This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.

According to this budget, our debt-to-GDP ratio is set to increase from 42.4% to 43.4% this year. The finance minister herself knows that her inflationary debt and deficits are unsustainable. Let us relate this to a household budget in which someone is putting tens of thousands of dollars each year on their credit cards while only paying the minimum amount. We all know this is unsustainable, and this is happening year after year. We cannot borrow our way out of debt. We cannot spend our way out of debt.

Conservatives' third demand was to remove government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits to help build homes people can afford. The dream of home ownership for young and new Canadians under the government has died. Nine in 10 people who do not own a home say they never will. Over the past eight years, the down payment needed to buy a home has doubled. The average monthly mortgage and rent payments have nearly doubled in the same time. What used to cost $1,400 eight years ago is now over $3,000.

When the government took office, someone needed just 39% of their average paycheque to make monthly payments on the average house. Today, that has risen to 62%. We should remember that on top of that 62%, we are still facing the cost of living crisis, with the cost of groceries skyrocketing and the carbon tax increasing the cost of everything. Things are more expensive and Canadians are taking home less.

Let us talk about what this budget has, or rather does not have, for Saskatchewan. If we look through the document, Saskatchewan is mentioned only five times, and where it is mentioned is in paragraphs bragging about announcements made as far back as the summer of 2022 and some with little or no involvement of the federal government at all.

Our agriculture industry is barely mentioned as well, although this is hardly surprising with our current minister's abysmal track record in supporting our agriculture producers. What our agriculture sector needs most is relief from the punitive carbon tax. If the government was not so focused on trying to impress its European friends, it would know that our farmers are already tremendous stewards of the environment. Forcing them to pay obscene amounts in carbon tax means that they are less able to spend on needed new equipment that would lower their carbon footprint.

Thankfully, my friend from Huron—Bruce is working to fix that. His bill, Bill C-234, has passed the House, despite opposition from the government and the agriculture minister, and it is now making its way through the Senate. I pray that common sense will prevail and our farmers will see tax relief soon.

This budget has failed to do anything to help Canadians. It has failed those who are struggling with higher taxes and inflation. It has failed those who want to some day buy a home. It has failed our agriculture sector. It has failed Saskatchewan, and it has failed Canada. The cost of living crisis is real and it is hurting Canadians. The price of gas in Moose Jaw has risen over $1.60 after the government tripled its inflationary tax. This is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. The Prime Minister has said that he has put a price on pollution, but the fact is that he has put a price on people.

This is a bad budget, and I will not be supporting it.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and, today, to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, whom I serve. This time, I am speaking about Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I would like to focus on three areas in my speech today. First, there is the out-of-control inflationary spending and deficits that are driving up the cost of living and interest rates for people in my riding and across Canada. Second, there are the tax increases that are being piled on at a time when Canadians can least afford it. Third, there is the desperate need in this country to have homes people can afford.

First, the $46-billion bonanza of new spending in the budget is on top of the billions in wasteful spending that we have seen in the last few years from the government. Certainly, it makes for great photo ops for government ministers and MPs, but all this spending is adding inflationary fuel to the already raging affordability fire. Gone are the fiscal anchors and guardrails.

What does this mean for people in my riding and across Canada? I will paint a picture for us of what is happening at kitchen tables in suburban communities in my constituency like Waterdown, Binbrook or Mount Hope. For context, this is a five- or six-hour drive from this place, both literally and figuratively removed from the Ottawa bubble that the out-of-touch Liberals live in here.

I know this from the hundreds of conversations I have had with constituents in the past few months, particularly the last couple of constituency weeks, when I had a number of meetings across the riding. These are typically young families, often new Canadians, who have moved to fast-growing suburbs of the Hamilton area at the western end of the GTA. They have done so, over the last five to seven years in particular, in search of a home in which to raise their children. A detached family home is attainable for these couples, who often have two incomes, in these communities.

Certainly, the prices in Toronto or Mississauga, where these people have come from, are far more out of reach. They have come here in search of more affordable living. They feel fortunate because at least they got into the market before the prices skyrocketed.

There are others they speak to in their peer groups who have good jobs but cannot even contemplate saving up enough for a down payment, particularly when that has doubled since the Liberals took office. Moreover, they do not have the means to qualify for the million-dollar-plus mortgage that would be required, given the average cost of housing in the area.

These families and individuals are really worried right now. A lot of them are at the point where their five-year mortgages are coming up for renewal. Interest rates, of course, have gone up. Some of these people have seen their renewals cause their mortgages to double or be hundreds of dollars, maybe even a thousand dollars, more of their monthly budget. That is a real punch to the gut.

This comes at a time when they are also dealing with credit card bills that are mounting. This is because, far too often, there is more month left at the end of the money. They have also just gotten their natural gas and home heating bills and noticed a significant increase not just in the cost of natural gas but also in the line items, with the carbon tax and then the tax on top of the carbon tax, the HST, on their bill. There was an article in the local weekly paper about this recently. This has been another hit to their budgets.

They are also often commuting to work. Filling up their tank is now taking a bigger bite of their household budget. Of course they are feeling squeezed.

We know that groceries are up almost $1,100 for the average household in Canada. Often, it is more. The carbon tax has been added and increased for home heating, groceries and, of course, driving a vehicle. That is all expensive. There are no savings for these individuals to dip into.

This is the reality at the kitchen tables across the GTHA and across the country. There is worry. There is concern. We have also heard, from recent polling, that six in 10 people are looking at cancelling their summer vacation plans because of this.

That is why this Liberal budget is so disappointing. It really makes matters worse. It has more inflationary spending, more deficits, more money wasted and billions of dollars in contracts to high-priced consultants. Certainly, the Auditor General found billions in COVID supports that were sent to people like prisoners and dead people.

All this inflation means more dollars chasing fewer goods. It is driving up interest rates, which are really the cruellest tax of all. The budget makes matters worse by not getting this inflationary and wasteful spending under control. When we are on track to spend almost as much or more on interest on the national debt than on transfers to the provinces for health care, as we are now, we know something is very wrong.

As my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets pointed out in his speech on this bill last Friday, every prime minister since former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who was responsible for the original debt-and-deficit binge of the 1970s and 1980s, ran operating surpluses. That includes Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin and Harper.

We are now back to operating deficits. Canadians are paying the price, with 40-year high inflation and now eight interest rate hikes over the past year. It is no wonder young families, seniors on a fixed income and new Canadians trying to make a fresh start in our blessed country are sitting worried at their kitchen tables.

If inflation and interest rate hikes were not enough to handle in this cost of living crisis, taxes are also up in this budget. This is an incredible thing during the worst cost of living crisis that Canadians have seen in a generation.

We know the carbon tax went up on April 1. That is increasing the cost of three essentials: home heating, gas for vehicles and groceries. It is also increasing an unmanageable tax burden on our farmers, the ones who produce our food.

Fortunately, members on this side of the House supported Bill C-234 from my hon. colleague from Huron—Bruce to remove the carbon tax from farm fuels, the heating and cooling of barns, and farm production. We hope the Senate passes it quickly.

Farmers feed our cities. Canada feeds the world. It is especially important now in the time of Putin's illegal war against Ukraine that Canada be there to feed the world. We should be encouraging this world-class and world-leading agriculture in our country and the agri-food industry in every way possible, not taxing it to death.

The excise tax also went up on April 1, despite a motion from this side of the House to pause that increase this year. Canada already has among the highest excise taxes in the world on wine, beer and spirits. We certainly have some outstanding wineries. There is one in my riding. There are many just down the road in Niagara. There are some cideries and craft breweries. They are being punished by this escalator tax. In fact, this is hampering their competitiveness. That is a shame.

I am running out of time, so I want to touch very briefly on the third area where I think the budget is failing, which is bringing in homes that people can afford. For new Canadians and young people, the dream of working hard, staying focused on goals and achieving home ownership is fading. It is really sad to me that nine out of 10 people who do not have a home today have given up on the dream of home ownership.

We have seen under the Liberal government that down payments and mortgage payments have doubled. How is it possible to get into the market? I am the grandson of Dutch immigrants who came to Canada with nothing from war-torn Europe after World War II. They built a better life for their families by doing exactly that. They worked hard. They built a modest, middle-class life through hard work and sacrifice.

After eight years of the Liberal government, the dream that Canada is the land of hope and opportunity is no more. We know the CMHC said that Canada needs to build 3.5 million more homes to reach the projected number to restore affordability.

We are in a time when the cost of living crisis is ravaging many Canadian households. They need better than what is in the budget implementation act. Families are struggling, and 1.5 million or more are going to food banks. They need better. Our economy needs better.

Conservatives stand ready to deliver and unleash Canada's great potential for everyone.