Debates of May 30th, 2018

Motions in Amendment

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving me an opportunity to talk about the highly progressive fiscal framework we proposed in 2015. Our vision was to make bold investments for the future while raising the revenue we needed to finance top-notch programs. Unfortunately, that vision may not be shared by the Conservatives.

That said, the government's budget documents show that public debt charges will shoot up in the coming years, increasing from $28 billion to about $35 billion. I do not have the figures with me today because I had not been expecting this question. That $35 billion a year is going straight into the pockets of Canadian and foreign banks and high-finance executives. In our opinion, that money is not going to the right place.

Interest rates will keep going up, which is why, according to the government's budget projections, $35 billion a year will soon be lining the pockets of the big bankers and financiers of the world.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening. I would like to acknowledge those watching and following the debate on the budget at such a late hour. I am sure that they will be pleased to hear me speak to Bill C-74, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1. This bill implements certain measures from budget 2018.

I will be talking about the EI system. I want to focus on a measure that I think is very important for Canadians, the modernization of the rules around working while on claim.

We want to improve the working while on claim pilot project. The provisions of working while on claim help claimants stay connected to the labour market by encouraging them to accept available work and earn extra income, while receiving employment insurance benefits. Under the rules of the current pilot project, claimants can keep half of their benefits for every dollar earned up to a maximum of 90% of the weekly insurable earnings. This pilot project is ending at the end of August 2018.

We intend to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act in order to make the rules for the current pilot project permanent by default. To implement this measure, we plan to spend almost $352 million over five years, beginning in 2018-19, and $80 million every year after that.

We will also put in place transitional provisions for those claimants who have chosen, under the current pilot project, to revert back to the rules of the former pilot project launched in 2005. The claimants will continue to benefit from these optional rules until August 2021, which will give them three years to adapt to the new permanent rules.

We want to include maternity and sickness benefits. These provisions already apply to parental and caregiving benefits, but they do not currently apply to maternity and sickness benefits.

Canadians who wish to stage their return to work after an illness or the birth of a child have limited flexibility to do so without jeopardizing their EI benefits. Extending the new working while on claim benefits to maternity and sickness benefits will give affected Canadians greater flexibility. They will be able to keep a good part of their EI benefits if they wish to prepare to return to work.

The measures I just mentioned benefit all employment insurance claimants, including seasonal workers.

I will now talk about support for seasonal workers. Our government is aware of seasonal workers' concerns and the difficulties that some of them are having. That is why we announced a series of measures in budget 2018 to help ensure that unemployed workers in seasonal industries have access to the supports they need when they need them most.

First, we are allocating $10 billion from existing departmental resources to provide immediate income support and training to affected workers. In that regard, we are developing agreements with key provinces, such as Quebec—where I proudly represent Rivière-des-Milles-Îles—New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, to provide that money. Funding will be available as soon as an agreement is signed so that seasonal workers have access to programs and support as quickly as possible.

We have already signed a $2.5-million agreement with the Government of New Brunswick. That additional funding will allow the province to offer seasonal workers seven weeks of work experience, workplace essential skills training, or general essential skills training with income support. Support will be offered to workers in the fishery, the agricultural industry, the forestry industry, and the tourism industry in the most affected areas of New Brunswick. I hope that there are people from New Brunswick listening to us this evening.

Other agreements will be announced soon.

Our government is also proposing to invest $80 million in 2018-19 and $150 million in 2019-20 and to work with the provinces in order to come up with local solutions to help seasonal workers.

We will be using the tools available to us, such as labour market development agreements. Together, we will find solutions that will help better adapt the employment insurance system to regional market conditions. Canada is vast and its regions differ from one another. It is important to be able to adjust to the different regions.

In closing, since being elected, we have set out to improve the employment insurance system to bring it more into line with the realities of today's workforce, since we want it to serve workers and employers. The legislative changes I just talked about are part of that commitment, and passing Bill C-74 is the next step toward achieving our objective.

I strongly recommend that all my colleagues in the House support this bill so that we can continue to support Canadian workers and families and, by extension, the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Bill C-74—Notice of time allocation motion

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-74, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution in this place. We all want to see good things happen in this country. However, the minister has given notice that fewer members of Parliament will be able to speak to an important piece of legislation. Given what we have just heard, how does the member feel about the fact that other members of Parliament, even in her own party, will be denied the ability to speak to the budget implementation bill? Again, there are over 20 divisions.

First of all, does she support cutting off debate in this way? Second, whatever happened to the commitment by the Liberals to allow full scrutiny of omnibus legislation? In fact, they originally said that they would not conduct omnibus budget legislation. She can answer those two things.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am quite frankly surprised by my colleague's comments. On the other side of the aisle today, they tried to adjourn the debate to stop us from sitting. Now I am talking about our budget, which is amazing. I do not understand. We absolutely must talk about our budget. I did not hear my colleague ask any questions about the 600 jobs that have been created since 2015, since we came to power. He did not mention that. I am sure that the Canada child benefit is making a huge difference. This $600 per child every month, across Canada, is generating unbelievable economic growth—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I just want to remind members that there is no going back and forth. The hon. member who asked the question had the opportunity to ask the question without interruption, and I would hope that he will ensure that he provides that respect back.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight in this place to ask questions about the budget implementation bill. I appreciate that the hon. member did not speak to this specifically, but I keep waiting to see a budget bill from the current government that encompasses the climate action of budget 2005.

The current Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was then the minister of finance. The hon. members of the Liberal Party can speak with the Minister of Public Safety about why budget 2005 included so many more actions that reduced greenhouse gases than the budget we have before us today. I wonder if my hon. colleague across the way has any thoughts as to why this budget would do so little to reduce greenhouse gases.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

I am so proud to be part of a government that links economic growth with sustainable development, that is ensuring that we control greenhouse gases, and that will meet the Paris targets. We are clearly working very hard to manage the environment and we are definitely headed in the right direction.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask two questions and give the hon. member the option to answer one or the other.

Here is one promise that was made in the Liberal platform in 2015: “After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.” I am asking when that will happen.

The second promise that I want to read from the Liberal platform was just brought up by my hon. colleague here. The promise was regarding omnibus bills. It stated, “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.” When will that happen?

I want to give the hon. member the option to answer one of those two questions.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my reply to my hon. colleague is that we are now going to achieve a goal that has eluded us for 40 years. In fact, Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio of all G7 countries. We have not seen that in 40 years.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill. In particular, today I will be focusing my comments on the carbon pricing system that the government is proposing to put in place.

Our government is taking very seriously the challenges and opportunities presented by the threat of climate change and the evolution of clean growth. We have already announced historic investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and clean innovation, as well as a plan to put a price on carbon pollution across the country.

Canadians know that pollution is not free. In recent years, Canadians have encountered more frequent and extreme weather events, such as forest fires and floods. Disasters have cost billions of dollars in damages to taxpayers. As the climate changes, this will only get worse. Many people have lost homes and businesses.

For the last decade, the party opposite refused to act on climate change, and some outright denied that it was even real. In failing to implement a credible plan, they put our environment and our economy in jeopardy.

Today, we can no longer drag our feet. We need to act, and that is exactly what we are doing.

A central pillar of the plan is a price on pollution, which is widely recognized as one of the most efficient ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It also encourages people and businesses to save money and make cleaner choices, such as better insulating their homes and upgrading to more efficient equipment. As a result, carbon pricing is a foundation of Canada's clean growth and climate action plan. Pricing pollution has a track record of success in the world and here in Canada, where it has helped us tackle problems, such as acid rain, while supporting clean growth and innovation. A price on carbon is already in effect in nearly half the world's economy.

New analysis by Environment and Climate Change Canada confirms that a price on pollution across Canada would significantly reduce carbon pollution while maintaining a strong and growing economy. The study found that carbon pricing could reduce carbon pollution by up to 90 million tonnes across Canada in 2022, as much as taking 26 million cars off the road or shutting down more than 20 coal plants. Carbon pricing would make a substantial contribution to Canada's 2030 target, but it is not the only thing we are doing to cut emissions. Canada's climate plan includes many other measures that work together with carbon pricing to reduce pollution.

The study also found that GDP growth would remain strong with a nationwide price on carbon pollution. Canada's GDP is expected to grow by approximately 2% per year between now and 2022, with or without carbon pricing.

This does not include the huge opportunity of clean innovation. Carbon pricing would help Canadian companies create jobs and compete successfully in the global shift to cleaner growth, an opportunity the World Bank estimates will be worth $23 trillion globally between now and 2030.

More than 80% of Canadians already live in jurisdictions with carbon pricing in place. Our approach recognizes the actions already taken by B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. Those provinces had the strongest economic growth in the country last year. The pan-Canadian approach builds on the leadership taken by these jurisdictions and provides all provinces and territories the flexibility to implement the type of system that suits their circumstances. It also sets some common criteria to ensure that the price on pollution is fair and effective across the country.

To ensure that a price on carbon pollution is in place across Canada, the government committed to develop and implement a federal carbon pricing system in any province or territory that requests it, or that does not have a carbon pricing system that meets the federal standard.

Today, governments pricing carbon pollution in B.C., Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario use the revenues in a variety of ways. They can return money directly to households and businesses, cut taxes, or fund programs that reduce the cost of clean technology.

Provinces and territories have until September 1 to confirm their carbon pricing approach. Direct revenue from the application of the federal carbon pricing backstop will remain in the jurisdiction of origin.

In 2017, the four provinces with carbon pricing systems in place, which were British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, were also the top four performers in GDP growth across the country. That is the result of a long list of factors, but anyone who says carbon pricing hurts economies is not basing their argument on the evidence.

Since 2007, British Columbia's carbon tax has reduced emissions by between 5% to 15%. Meanwhile, provincial real GDP grew by more than 17% between 2007 and 2015, and per capita gasoline demand dropped by 15% over that period. British Columbia's growing clean technology sector now brings in an estimated $1.7 billion in annual revenue. We see the same results in other countries. In Sweden, which has the world's highest carbon tax at 137 euros per tonne, GDP and industry have grown while emissions have dropped.

In addition to estimating the costs, it is important to consider the benefits of reducing pollution. This includes the avoided costs of climate change, the long-term financial benefits of transitioning to a cleaner economy, and the benefits that may flow from innovations driven by carbon pricing.

Pollution from coal power plants results in health issues that cost the health care system over $800 million annually, according to a study from 2014.

Canadian businesses already know that carbon pricing makes good sense and will help to ensure that they remain competitive in the emerging low carbon economy. Carbon pollution pricing helps Canadian companies to create jobs and compete successfully in the global shift toward clean growth, an opportunity that the World Bank estimates will be worth $23 trillion globally between now and 2030.

About 85% of the Canadian economy is already subject to a carbon pricing system, and every province has committed to adopt some form of carbon pricing.

Canada is creating a business environment that will strengthen and grow the clean economy. Success stories include CarbonCure, a business that retrofits concrete plants with a technology to recycle carbon dioxide to make stronger, greener concrete; and Solar Vision, a Quebec-based business providing solar lighting technologies; and many more examples.

The impacts of a changing climate are already being felt. From 1983 to 2004, insurance claims in Canada from severe weather events totalled almost $400 million a year. In the past decade, that amount tripled to more than $1 billion per year. Canadians expect polluters to pay because it is the right thing to do for our kids and grandkids.

We know that the costs of inaction are much greater than the costs of taking action now. Taking strong action to address climate change is a critical and urgent step, and making sure there is a carbon price across the country is a matter of fairness for all Canadians.

Canadians deserve a plan that spurs innovation and creates well-paying middle-class jobs. They deserve a serious, smart, and thoughtful plan to protect the environment and grow the economy, and that is exactly what this government is delivering.

I would also like to add that I very much appreciate the participation by the Minister of Innovation and Science in today's debate and for making sure that all of the relevant points in my speech were highlighted effectively.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member for West Nova to be a reasonable person. I do not know how many times he said that we need to address climate change in a serious way. I am sure he listened to me tonight when I mentioned all of the programs that we put together, like the Canada EcoTrust for $1.5 billion, which represented great federal co-operation with the province in reducing gas emissions.

The member has recited many numbers from the IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nations. Could he give us a number from his government as to how much the Liberal carbon tax will cost each family? He has cited numbers from all of those international organizations, but he is part of a government that has numbers hidden somewhere. How much is the Liberal carbon tax going to cost each family? Can we know this number, please?

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

Madam Speaker, if the opposition has been listening since this debate started, it will know that the manner in which people are going to be taxed, the manner in which the price on carbon is going to be introduced, is going to be based on an agreement between a province and the federal government. It is going to be different in each jurisdiction.

Furthermore, it all depends on how the money is going to be used. If the province decides to give that money back and cut cheques to people, it will be neutral. It all depends on how the province decides and plans to use the money. That point has been made over and over again. I know the opposition wants to continue to ask the question, because it thinks it is going to get the “gotcha” moment at some point, but the reality of the situation is that it is as clean and clear as that. It comes down to how the provinces decide to use the funds they generate.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He is very energetic and passionate at this late hour, and that is to his credit. However, I would like to ask him a very specific question. The member for Sherbrooke spoke about this earlier today.

How is it that a government that wants to legalize marijuana is planning to tax people with prescriptions for medical marijuana?

The government is going to increase the fees and sometimes even the cost of marijuana, even though it is the only drug that works to assuage some people's persistent pain. Sometimes medication does not work and marijuana is the only thing that does. In recent months, desperate people have been coming to my office and asking for the Liberal government to listen to reason. They are saying that their costs are going to skyrocket and that they might have to go without the one drug that helps them because the Liberals want to tax it.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are debating the budget, so the questions will be on the entirety of the budget. My remarks today were specifically on the price on carbon. However, when it comes to the price of medicine and the costs associated with that, the government has a clear position on what it is going to do and how it is going to move forward. We are going to look at pharmacare. We are going to look at how we can make it affordable for people to get access to the medicines they need. It is preliminary to suggest how that will come out as it relates to medical marijuana, but I am certainly interested in seeing the results that come forward from the task force that has been set up to undertake that.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know we are hearing lots about carbon pricing, the carbon tax, and all this fun stuff. Where is the respect for provincial jurisdiction? I come from a province that has a climate change plan, and it is not being respected. The government is forcing a carbon tax on the people of Saskatchewan. I just want to know if he is proud of the lack of respect the government has for provincial jurisdiction.

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

Madam Speaker, there is respect. The respect is shown in the way in which the federal government is choosing to engage with the provinces in terms of setting up that price on carbon and how that money is going to be translated and used within the province. When it comes to certain issues, one of those being the effect on the environment nationally, the role of the federal government is to set policy and set direction and to then work with the provinces to implement that and see how they want to use the revenues they are going to be receiving from that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place. It is a tremendous honour and privilege to represent the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge. Many of the constituents of Calgary Rocky Ridge have very strong feelings on the budget.

It is no mystery that our party is opposed to it. We are opposed to the budget implementation act. Notwithstanding the 400-odd amendments that have been introduced and suggested, we will do what we can to try to salvage something from it. We will see how it goes with the amendments. However, I do not think any number of amendments could possibly salvage the budget in total. I am rather down on the budget, as are most of the constituents whom I have spoken to about it.

There are several key aspects of the budget that really still need to be addressed.

When the budget came out, the book was about 400 pages long. The budget implementation act is similar in length. Nowhere in any of these documents will we see the words “balanced budget”. One might ask if that is important or is it an issue. It is important for two reasons.

First, it is prudent management to eventually either have a balanced budget or some kind of a plan toward a balanced budget. All 10 provinces and all three territorial governments are either currently running a balanced budget or have a clearly articulated plan and path toward a balanced budget. The only jurisdiction, the only government in Canada that does not have any type of plan whatsoever for a balanced budget is the federal government. The only finance minister in Canada among all the provincial and territorial governments, including the federal government, who does not have a plan for a balanced budget is the federal finance minister. That is disappointing for its own sake, or even just on the point of policy alone.

Why this is particularly disappointing is that the government ran on a very clear promise. On page 12 of the Liberal platform in the 2015 election, it states:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class. After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

The Liberals promised no more than $10 billion in deficits. They promised to return to a balanced budget in 2019. This was not something they tucked away in some obscure part of their platform in hopes that nobody would notice. This is something they took to the doors. They said that there would be a modest deficit only to facilitate the infrastructure spending they had planned.

I want to depart from that for one moment and raise how the Liberals' infrastructure plan is going along. Not too long ago the Prime Minister made his first visit to Calgary in quite some time. He came to make a historic spending announcement while he was there in the name of the Liberals' infrastructure plan, $1.53 billion for the green line, an important infrastructure piece for the city of Calgary. It is a critical piece of infrastructure. The only problem is that these funds had been committed and announced by the previous government. The Liberals fly around the country re-announcing projects that were already announced in some cases, like this one, before they were even elected, taking credit for them, and expecting extraordinary credit for the projects. I do not want to digress too far. However, the point is that the budget is a broken election promise.

The Liberals promised no more than $10 billion in deficits and a return to a balanced budget by 2019. The finance minister will not acknowledge in any way that these commitments were made and ignores all questions put to him, including at committee, where he was asked repeatedly when the budget would be balanced. He ignored these questions.

That alone is enough reason to render the budget and its implementation act unworthy of support, but I want to move briefly to the carbon tax. The previous speaker devoted his time to a defence of the carbon tax. Let us even set aside the arguments for and against a tax on carbon; what about evidence-based policy and what about transparency and openness with Canadians?

The government refuses to tell Canadians what the tax will cost. Surely that is a minimum standard to which the government could hold itself, to just simply be honest with Canadians and share what the tax is going to cost as the Liberals compel provinces to adopt it—some of them against their will, some of them in contravention of their own climate change strategies that they have developed through carbon capture, such as the Province of Saskatchewan—without telling Canadians what this tax will cost them and while claiming that it is revenue neutral.

“Do we not know what revenue neutral means?” a member asked in an earlier debate on this. Most Canadians know that “revenue neutral” is code for “it is really going to cost us a whole bunch”, and Liberals will not tell us how much. The first part of revenue neutral that is flagrantly false is that there will be GST on the carbon tax that the federal government is going to collect. That is not revenue neutral. That is a tax on the tax, which the federal government is going to keep.

As for the latitude that the government says it is leaving provinces to decide how they will deal with the carbon tax, that is not revenue neutral to a family. If a family has to pay more tax on all the normal things that families spend money on, such as gasoline to get to work or to take their children to school, it does not matter whether they put gasoline in a car and drive a child to school or whether they pay the bus fee for their child; this tax would apply to all of them.

The tax puts giant holes in municipal governments' budgets, because municipalities have to pay this tax. They have to pay the tax when they fuel their buses so people can take public transit. They still have their cost increased and they still have to pay the carbon tax. Heating homes in a cold country and transportation are things that Canadians spend money on, and they are made more expensive by the carbon tax. I wish the government would please just spare us this talk of revenue neutrality, because it is not washing with Canadians. It really does not make any sense.

Perhaps the Prime Minister came closest to his true feelings when he encouraged Canadians to “make better choices” or change behaviour when people asked how they are going to be able to afford to fill their car with gas so they can go to work.

On page 290 of the budget, the finance minister basically took credit for pipelines that were yet to be built, such as the Trans Mountain expansion. The finance minister acknowledged the differential and the significant discount that Canadians receive for their energy products because of a shortage in pipeline and said that the revenue should improve because new pipe is going to reduce the differential.

Here we are. The pipeline is not any closer to being built. We just spent $4.5 billion on an old pipeline, without even finding out what the cost is going to be to build the new pipeline and deal with all the obstacles that were preventing it from being built by Kinder Morgan. The Liberals' own budget projections rely on new tax revenue that will result from a pipeline that is not even built yet.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would acknowledge that back in 2006, and I remember it well, the finance minister of the day left a $13-billion surplus, and the country was in deficit with the Harper government before the recession hit. Fast forward a few years, and the Harper government created a fake surplus by massively cutting veterans' organizations and women's organizations. That government closed status of women organizations and offices across the country. We know that they sold auto shares at a loss.

The hon. member spoke about evidence and evidence-based decision-making. Would he acknowledge those facts?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would caution the member on his assertion that many of the things he said are facts. I will point out to the member that we have heard this, usually not on the record and usually in heckles that occasionally come across from the other side, about the massive deficits that were incurred. We know that the Liberals, when they were in opposition, threatened to bring down the government because the deficit that was on offer to deal with an unprecedented financial crisis, in conjunction with our G7 partners, was not a big enough deficit for them. They were going to bring down the government, because the deficit was not big enough. They wanted the biggest deficit possible at the time.

I will take no lessons from the Liberals on deficits.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, over the last two and a half years, we have talked a lot in the House about the need for pay equity and equality for women. This budget is called a gender and growth budget. I am wondering whether my colleague finds it curious that despite that title, gender and growth, there is very little in the bill. Would the Conservatives agree that we need pay equity now?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member brought up the issue of the budget's theme and title. What a cynical and disingenuous title and theme it is for a budget. It is insulting and condescending. It mentions the word gender some 400 times throughout, yet it imposes new taxes on women that many observers have pointed out will perhaps be disproportionately paid by women.

The shameless pandering of that party through the use of buzz words and distraction is indeed disappointing.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, in a previous question, I indicated, from Alberta.ca, the incredible success Alberta is seeing in the growth of its economy and the growth of its retail sector and exports.

In his presentation, the hon. member spoke about the carbon pricing program in Alberta. I want to draw to his attention that a family of four--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. If I am having trouble hearing the question, it is a problem, and it is a problem as well for the person who will have to answer the question, which I know he is very capable of. Instead of having discussions back and forth between other MPs, they should wait and stand to ask questions, if they wish.

Could the hon. member for Guelph please wrap it up?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, a family of four with an annual income of $95,000 will receive a $540 tax cut in a situation where they paid $500, so they will actually get more money back as a result of the carbon pricing program.

Would the hon. member not agree that the people of Alberta are creating tremendous growth in their province and succeeding with the tax benefits through the carbon program?