Debates of Dec. 8th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but my colleague should not quote out of context. Quoting out of context is just a pretext for saying things that are not true. What he said is true in theory, but the effect is minimal, and that is what matters.

The real causes of inflation are the broken supply chains, which take time to fix; China's zero-COVID policy, which has disrupted all the supply chains; and Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine, which has also thrown supply chains around the world into chaos.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion on the carbon tax, which, according to the Conservatives, is the enemy of humankind.

What is more, we have before us Bill C-234, which will give our farmers some tax relief on farm fuels and the sales tax on propane used for drying grain. We have many farmers in my riding of Mirabel. I would like to know what the government thinks about that. We know that, previously, the government and even the Minister of Agriculture voted against farmers. I am wondering whether they have changed their minds in that regard. This is very important for farmers in Mirabel. They have talked to me about it many times.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am not completely familiar with that private member's bill. Nevertheless, I know that the government is always there to support our farmers.

We will support them by fighting against climate change. We are well aware that the climate crisis is something that we have to deal with today, tomorrow and in the coming years.

Farmers know in their gut that climate change is coming. We have to work on that, and that is why we always need to put a price on pollution and implement a number of policies that will help create a greener, more sustainable Canada.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that the Conservatives have raised the fact that Canada is number 58 when it comes to climate action and spoke to our ability to tackle the climate challenge and live up to our commitments. It is ironic because the Conservatives do not have a plan to address climate change, but it is also a problem because number 58 is not where we need to be as a country.

Despite having a carbon pricing system in this country, Canada continues to be laggard, to not live up to the commitments we have made and to not perform. We are not on track to meet the targets we have set. What needs to be done to improve Canada's approach to climate and to stop being such a laggard on this critical issue?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is a big question, and we only have about 30 seconds to answer it.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, for a brief response.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to give a brief response. That is a great question from my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

The reason Canada has fallen behind is that, for too long, we felt the effects of the Harper government's non-plan for the environment.

Now we have a realistic plan in place, one that is recognized throughout the world and is one of the best plans because it is detailed. It includes very specific and very strong targets, as well as initiatives that, finally, are rigorous.

That is why I am very optimistic about the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Mr. Speaker, I went to the cafeteria on the first floor yesterday to get a grilled cheese, and I was really hoping to see you there. You are very charming and I really appreciate you. In the end, upon reflection, it was just as well that you were not there, because I ran into a Conservative member who spilled a coffee on his pants and found a way to colourfully blame it on the carbon tax.

I thought to myself, yes, that is obviously the source of all evil. I knew today was going to be a Conservative opposition day, so I made a bet with myself that the Conservatives would move a motion to give the bogeyman a new name, the carbon-tax man.

I read the motion last night, and I am pleased to say I was right, because that is essentially what this is. This entirely predictable motion portrays the carbon tax as the source of all evil and its abolition the solution to every problem under the sun. This is not really a motion about buying power or the price of food. It is not really about helping our farmers. This motion is further evidence that the Conservatives are trapped in their ideological cage, an ideology that says abolishing the carbon tax is the only way to fight climate change and make a transition. It is an ideological cage, and they are imprisoned inside it. Public debate is also being held captive, but the premise is false. It is false to say that this is the only solution.

The Conservatives are talking about our farmers. I would like to talk about farmers in the Lower Laurentians. The Union des producteurs agricoles, the UPA, recently held a convention in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I went to the UPA convention and talked to farmers. They thanked the Bloc Québécois for supporting Bill C‑234, which gives them a little GST relief on fuel for their tractors, agricultural equipment, propane and grain drying. They applauded our responsiveness, our pragmatism and our openness. They recognize that and told me so. That is always good to hear.

Instead of proposing a targeted approach, they are engaging in a generalized attack against the infamous carbon tax, which does not apply directly to Quebec, because Quebec has a cap-and-trade system. The basic principle of these systems is to increase the price of inputs or goods that pollute, while at the same time returning the tax-generated revenues to households. The relative price of these goods will be higher because they pollute more, but, in return, people will get help with their purchasing power. In the long run, it means that people will choose inputs and goods that pollute less. However, for these changes to be made, we must be realistic. There also needs to be a vision for the long-term transition. We must give people more options. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are offering that. That is why we are still stuck in our current situation. Bloc Québécois members are realists. We think it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time without getting stuck like the Conservatives.

This is why we supported the part of their motion that deals with agricultural fuels and which is the object of Bill C‑234. That is why we support the elimination of the tax on propane used to dry grain. At the UPA central union in Sainte-Scholastique-Mirabel, they looked me in the eyes and told me that it was important. However, that is the object of Bill C‑234, so the Conservatives do not need to waste time with their motion.

With respect to fertilizer, I would like to commend the extraordinary work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I myself participated in meetings where the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, our agriculture critic, had gathered everyone around the table, including farmers. There were meetings with firms to ensure that fertilizer supply contracts, which had been signed before the war in Ukraine, are not subject to sanctions. These honest farmers had the right to get their fertilizer at a predictable price. We were there for them.

The issue of transportation is important, because that is where we will have cut emissions the most over the next 10, 20 and 30 years, if we exclude electricity generation itself in most provinces. We have adopted a smart, focused and temporary approach that is compatible with the transition and shows compassion for the people who pay. This helps taxi drivers, truckers and those who are temporarily affected by the vagaries of the geopolitical tensions that we are currently experiencing.

I would remind our Conservative colleagues that the price of oil is currently determined by a cartel, by their friends in Saudi Arabia and their friends in Venezuela, who are communists. This is OPEC+, which includes Russia, which, again last week, decided to cut production to keep prices high, to the great delight of Alberta's public finances.

That is why we supported Bill C‑234. If we must point the finger at a party that does not support farmers, it is the Liberal Party. When we voted on Bill C‑234, I was there and the Bloc Québécois was there for farmers from Quebec and the whole country. I was the first of 338 members of the House to say on social media that even the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had voted against farmers. The central unions of the Union des producteurs agricoles noticed that.

The reality is that we must embark on a transition; this was not decided on a whim. The Conservatives have never tabled a motion that would allow us to assess and appreciate how we can embark on a transition that would reflect the ambitions of the west. They are still fixated on the carbon tax.

The International Energy Agency, however, believes that demand in energy will drop by 7% by 2050 because some countries are making a effort, although Canada is not.

The European Union believes that energy demand will drop by 30% to 38% by 2050. Why? It is because some countries are doing their part. Canada is not among them.

France expects its energy demand to drop by 40% by 2050. Why? It is because France is a G7 country that is making an effort. Here in the House, whenever a Conservative motion is put forward, the substantive problems are forgotten in the rush to score partisan points. I have no interest in going down that road. We deserve better in the House.

When faced with the kinds of things I am saying now, the Conservatives attack Quebec. Just last week, Conservatives posted misleading statements on social media, saying that a metric tonne of carbon is cheaper in Quebec, with our cap-and-trade system, than in the rest of the country. The reason is simple: Our system is based on controlling quantity, and prices fluctuate. A metric tonne is cheaper in Quebec because there is less demand. There is less demand for allowances because we pollute less.

This system was the Western Climate Initiative, which originally included Canadian provinces and U.S. states. Some of them dropped out because they wanted to pay less, because they do not want to transition and because they knew it would cost them even more. Today, they refuse to consider possible solutions. That is what put us in the position we are in today.

Let us get back to the issue of inflation. All of this does not mean that no one is facing higher prices for groceries or fuel. The people I meet on a daily basis are experiencing these difficulties. We must address the weaknesses in our supply chain. It is not because of the Bank of Canada that we are having a hard time getting Japanese cars. There is just one Conservative telling us that. It is not the Bank of Canada's fault that lumber is in short supply. Last time I checked, the governor of the central bank was not out cutting down spruce trees in the Saguenay region. I did not hear anything of the kind.

It is not Canada's fault that we have seen record prices for resources such as wheat, rice or commodities. At the Chicago stock exchange, a few weeks ago, no one cared about Alberta's carbon tax. There is just one Conservative saying that and misleading the public.

Over the long term, global warming will cause even more disruption and instability in the supply chain. There is just one Conservative telling us it is a myth. This week, I heard a Conservative say that the holes in the ozone layer were a myth. They are the only ones who think that way.

When the Bloc Québécois moves motions on the prayer in the House or on the monarchy and the fact that we kneel before entering the House to pray to a foreign sovereign who is up to his ears in monarchy, the Conservatives lecture us about priorities.

I would have liked to see the Conservatives move a motion about our dependence on oil and how we can reduce it in a way that is fair to workers. I would have liked to see them present a targeted plan for low-income individuals or targeted support for our farmers. That is what our farmers are asking for, to deal with the structural weaknesses of our supply chains.

I would have liked to see them present a plan for building social housing for those who need it. Trickle-down economics does not work for housing. We must build housing for people who are living on the streets.

I would have liked to see a motion proposing solutions to address the weak links in the supply chain. Quebec's seaports are telling us they need help.

The next time the Conservatives call our priorities into question, I will tell them to buy a mirror, because they are on sale at Rona.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague, who is also my office neighbour, about three things.

First of all, there will be no visits from our Saudi Arabian friends this holiday season in my riding because we have Valero Energy, the largest refinery in Quebec, which sources its crude oil from Canada and the United States.

Second, in his speech, my hon. colleague talked about the fact that, with the bill, farmers would get GST refunds. The GST is already refunded. It is an input. The GST and QST have been refunded for the past 30 years.

Here is my final point. I wonder if my colleague has ever seen a propane bill from one of the farmers in his riding that shows the carbon tax rate, which is increasing in line with the Liberal formula.

Has my colleague ever personally seen a real-life propane bill for drying grain in Quebec that includes the carbon tax rate?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I appreciate him.

I welcome the fact that Valero Energy refines Canadian oil for domestic use. This further confirms that we do not need to increase production for export. I thank him for pointing that out. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that most days.

Second, they need to understand that abolishing the carbon tax in provinces that are not environmentally responsible creates unfair competition with producers of various goods in other provinces that do pay their carbon tax. Conservatives love competition until it involves oil.

Third, I would like to say hello to Claude, a member of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Sainte‑Scholastique. At a meeting two weeks ago, he thanked me for our support for Bill C‑234, which addresses the cost of propane used for drying grain. I want to tell him that I am very much looking forward to visiting him at his farm.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party motion today proposes the elimination the carbon tax. I wonder how that would affect or come into force in provinces that have their own carbon tax plan, as well as the issuance of refunds or rebates that may be part of their plan. How would the federal government tell provinces not to implement the carbon tax when it is the province that is responsible for it?

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

Mr. Speaker, today I want to reiterate how proud I am to be a Quebecker.

When everyone was drawing back, pulling out of the Western Climate Initiative and reneging on their climate responsibilities. Quebec, as a nation, decided to take responsibility and set up its emissions trading system. Today, it is working so well that the Conservatives are jealous and are attacking it.

In politics, when you are attacked, it is often because you are right.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would like him to explain how this tax affects Canadian agriculture as a whole. We are pork, chicken and grain exporters.

What impact will this tax have if our farmers' prices go up compared to other countries? Will our farmers be able to sell their products? They will have to sell them at a loss on the international market. What is he going to tell people in his riding of Mirabel?

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

Mr. Speaker, many of our competitors that produce agricultural commodities are subject to similar tax measures in competing countries. What I tried to tell my colleague earlier in my speech, not my question, is that we recognize the impact on farmers, so we want targeted measures.

What my colleague forgot to mention is that the carbon tax applies to markets in general. We care about farmers, and we are sensitive to the problems they are dealing with, which is why my colleague is indirectly asking me whether we should abolish the tax for all industries, including western Canada's oil industry, which is the most polluting of all.

We need targeted measures. That is the problem with the Conservatives, and that is the problem with their motion. They are better at changing the subject than they are at identifying problems.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion before us today is the kind of Conservative motion we have had to debate since this session began. The message this motion sends is one of goodness, of awareness-raising of the financial difficulties that people are facing now. These struggles are real. Consumer prices have gone up. I have no doubt about my colleagues' goodness and desire to raise awareness on this subject. I have no doubts whatsoever, and I want to clarify that.

That said, when we take the time to analyze the motion, looking at its contents in greater detail and checking the facts, what we find under this lid of goodness and awareness-raising is a pot of soup filled to the brim with pieces of political and electoral interests, bits of misuse of information and incomplete facts.

The first premise of the motion sets out some frightening numbers for farmers, who are already struggling to get a sufficient income. According to this first premise, farmers will have to pay $150,000 a year in carbon taxes when they triple. That is a huge, terrifying amount. However, the motion fails to mention some information. For example, by 2030, the amount of the carbon tax will triple from what it is now. Consequently, the motion does not refer to a current or even near event. It also fails to mention that by 2030, a host of transitional measures will be in place to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Yes, taxes are increasing, but if our GHG production is reduced, the amount to be paid in 2030 should be roughly the same as today.

Now let us talk about some inconsistencies. Concerning the first point, today's motion fails to mention one very important aspect. It boggles the mind that it could have been left out. I am talking about the fact that the Conservative Party, namely, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, introduced Bill C-234, which is intended specifically to remove the carbon tax on agricultural facilities. The bill is now in committee, and everyone agrees that it should progress quickly. In short, it seems as though the right hand did not know what the left one was doing when it was time to write this motion today. The first premise of the motion could be described as misinformation, since the information contained therein is incomplete.

I want to take my colleagues back to their intro to philosophy class in college. Disinformation is caused by three main elements. The first is omitting to provide all the information necessary to understand the facts. That is what we have here. The second is distracting the reader from the information. That is what the motion does by blaming all the world's woes on the carbon tax, when rising consumer prices are the result of a multitude of factors. The third is deliberately sharing false information. The good news is that this is not the case here, but we do have two of three elements of misinformation.

The next few premises also contain big numbers, ones that are accurate. Nevertheless, because of the first premise, we might believe that the carbon tax alone is causing consumer prices to rise. However, as I just said, consumer price increases are caused by a multitude of factors, not just the carbon tax.

Now let us talk about what the motion calls for. The first two points are about eliminating the carbon tax on farm fuels. As I just explained, Bill C-234 addresses that. The right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing. The third point is about eliminating the carbon tax on fertilizer. Bill C-234 does not cover that, which is too bad. A bill to that effect could be brought in quite quickly with all the goodwill that I know Parliament is capable of showing. Having said that, farmers are suffering the consequences of the sanctions imposed on Russia and its fertilizer exports. That needs to be addressed. Those sanctions have nothing to do with the carbon tax. They were imposed because of the war. The fourth point is about eliminating the carbon tax on transportation. What kind of transportation are we talking about?

It cannot be agricultural transportation, because that is already covered by the first point about farm fuels. Therefore, it must mean other modes of transportation. Does it mean heavy trucks, trains, planes?

In the case of trucks, technologies are already in place to reduce the pollution they create. Thanks to these technologies, which include diesel exhaust fluid, trucks will be emitting far less pollution by 2030, when the carbon tax will be $170 a tonne. Aircraft technology is also changing a lot in terms of fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. That just leaves trains. We need to figure out how to move beyond Canada's 19th-century rail system. I dream of high-speed electromagnetic trains, not high-frequency rail. I dream of real modern trains. That would be so amazing.

Lastly, the fifth point of the motion is overly vague. It calls for the carbon tax to be cancelled on all other appropriate aspects of the food supply system. What are all those other aspects? Does that mean electricity, coal, factories, oil industries? I have no idea. I will not dwell on this point any longer than necessary, because it is as blurry as a desert mirage.

As I said, inflation has multiple causes: labour shortages affecting agricultural businesses and companies in general; natural disasters, such as floods, drought, hurricanes and fires; corporate wage increases; and war, which we have to include in the list. By blaming the increase in consumer prices on the carbon tax alone, this motion blatantly oversimplifies a far more complex phenomenon, and that oversimplification amounts to disinformation.

There are viable and responsible solutions that I would have loved to hear my colleagues suggest. First of all, pensions could be increased to help seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. They should also be allowed to work, if they so choose, without being doubly taxed. They pay more taxes than a family, when they have already paid taxes their entire lives. Furthermore, their pension gets clawed back once their income reaches a certain threshold. That makes no sense. Second, a program could be implemented to support the people hardest hit by rising gas prices, such as farmers and truckers. I want to mention that since these people are dependent on gasoline, they are also at the mercy of fluctuations in gasoline prices. As part of the transition, we must provide these people with solutions so that they are no longer subject to fluctuations. Third, the supply chain could be stabilized by strengthening critical links and promoting local production.

Of course, Quebec does not pay a carbon tax because it participates in the carbon market. However, I would like to remind members, as did my colleague, that when Quebec became a member of this market it tried to convince all Canadian provinces to join as well, but it was met with outright refusal. Quebec was alone in finding this to be a good idea. Quebec was also alone in 1982 when the provinces stabbed it in the back by going back on their promise. Quebec was alone on child care, as well; Canada's provinces insulted us for 20 years by saying that Quebec could not afford it, but it suddenly become a good idea when the federal government agreed to pay for it. Quebec was also alone in standing up for aluminum compared to steel, the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries, and others.

Given that the premises of the motion are incomplete, that a bill to provide farmers with relief will be passed and implemented, we cannot vote in favour of this motion.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in her speech that the motion put forward by the official opposition was like a stew and should have a lot of ingredients. She mentioned that one of the main ingredients should be meat. Can she please explain to the House why she believes there is not much meat in this stew from the official opposition?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech, I talked about a lid of goodness and consideration.

I believe that all members, be they Conservative, NDP or Liberal, are capable of goodness and consideration. They have shown this to be true. However, I said that the contents of the pot might come across as campaign-flavoured because of the information that was left out. That is what I explained in my speech.

When they talk about inflation, they point to one factor. They say it is because of the carbon tax, but they do not talk about other factors, such as environmental disasters, war and a weak supply chain. We can and must work on those other weaknesses.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague, which contained a lot of dreams and assumptions, but I would like to talk about something tangible. In 2030, the carbon tax will represent $30 an acre in Canada. Over 400 million acres, that means Canadian farmers will have to pay $12 billion a year.

According to my colleague, what part of that $12 billion could go back to the farmers, if they even get one cent?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about assumptions when the question itself contains one.

First, in 2030, transition measures will have reduced green house gas emissions. Will the carbon tax represent $30 an acre? Yes, but because of the reduced GHG emissions, that $30 an acre will be less significant because fewer GHGs will be emitted.

Second, I really hope that Bill C‑234, which we are studying at report stage, will be in force in 2030 and that for that reason, farmers will be exempt from the carbon tax.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that there was no mention of grocery store chains and no connection to getting the produce of local farmers and their production into the chains without farmers being taken advantage of or being in a situation with a lesser advantage regarding product placement and so forth. I think this was at least worth a mention, because it is affecting the price of groceries. At the end of the day, if Canadian access is prevented from being competitive, it really hurts consumers.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation with the big grocery store chains is worrisome. The increase in consumer prices caused by a desire to maintain a profit margin is worrisome. That being said, I delivered a 10-minute speech to explain why we are against this opposition motion and to propose other solutions. There are many other solutions that I did not mention. I only had 10 minutes, not 20.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this beautiful day to speak to the opposition motion before us.

I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member of Parliament for Nunavut. Mr. Speaker.

It feels funny to be speaking on this topic, a little like Groundhog Day. It seems like no matter the problem, the tool is always the same for the Conservatives. I guess when the only tool one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The climate crisis, the very pressing issue of astronomical food prices and the impact on Canadians is a serious problem that requires serious tools.

The motion before us is ostensibly about farmers. I want to take a moment to talk a bit about the farmers in northwest B.C. who do such an incredible job, such as the dairy and beef farmers.

I met in Terrace the other day with the owners of a new goat dairy. It wants to produce its own artisanal goat cheese and goat milk in the northwest, which is a really amazing endeavour. That includes the vegetable farmers as well, the market gardens and producers who sell their food throughout the northwest. We have a really bourgeoning local food culture in northwest B.C. and it is something of which we are very proud. All those farmers, no matter the size of their operations, should be rightly proud of the work they do.

It is right that farmers are facing many challenges. One of those challenges is the cost of the inputs that they require for their operations, but it is not the only challenge. Of course, longer term, one of the biggest challenges facing farmers is the impact of the climate crisis. It is somewhat ironic to debate an opposition day motion that seeks to undermine Canada's approach to the climate crisis when the people who feel the impact of the climate crisis most intimately are farmers across our country.

I want to talk a bit about the farmers who would be affected by this, but I also want to talk about the farmers who would not be affected by this. I appreciate my colleagues in the Bloc highlighting that the Province of Quebec is part of a cap and trade system, a carbon market, that is provincial in nature, with which the federal government has no tie-in. British Columbia is in a similar situation because it has a provincial price on carbon.

It concerns me that at the heart of this motion is a bit of deception, because it talks about helping farmers across the country, yet it is not going to help farmers in Quebec nor farmers in British Columbia, like the ones I represent. There is going to be zero help for those farmers if this opposition motion were to pass and the government were to act accordingly.

The real problem faced by farmers who are struggling is with the cost diesel for their tractors. I talked to one neighbour on the south side of Francois Lake, who has a beef operation. The price that he was paying for diesel for his tractor was unbelievable. This is a real challenge. However, if we are looking to Canada's carbon pricing system as the villain in this, we are looking in the wrong spot. The real challenge, when it comes to gas and diesel prices, is the absurd gouging by the oil and gas companies.

Members do not have to believe me; they can ask the President of the United States, Joe Biden. He called it war profiteering and he threatened to put an excess profit tax on oil and gas companies in that country. They are not just gouging farmers, but all Americans who require petroleum products in their lives.

We could also look to the United Kingdom, where a Conservative government has put a 25% excess profit tax in place on the oil and gas companies. It will take the revenue from that excess profit tax and drive it back into affordability measures so the British people can benefit during hard times when inflation is out of control.

Those are the kinds of real measures that the NDP has been advocating for the government to get serious about in cracking down on profiteering and excess profits during a time that is difficult for so many Canadians. We need that kind of action.

When we think about the carbon tax in British Columbia, it has an interesting history. It was brought in in 2007-08 by the noted eco-socialist premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell. He did that because, to his credit, he believed climate was the existential issue of our time and we needed to act in a way that was rigorous and evidence-based. He was a very Conservative political leader, as the Speaker well knows, and he believed that markets were the best way to do that. Part of the Conservative philosophy is that the best way to tackle things is through markets because they are efficient and often provide the lowest-cost approach to tackling big problems.

Therefore, if we believe that the climate crisis is a problem, then it makes sense to choose a tool that is efficient and low cost. That is why the Conservatives, in their last election platform, sort of had a price on carbon. They wanted to use a market-based mechanism, albeit a bit of a goofy one, that would charge people a carbon tax and then put that money into a special savings account that could only be used to buy eco-friendly things like bicycles and solar panels. It was a bit of a weird implementation of the idea, but at its heart was the idea of using a pricing mechanism. They did that because almost every economist in the western world agreed that pricing carbon was the most efficient way to go about it.

Members might be surprised to hear that I am a bit agnostic on the topic. I want to ensure that we use whatever tools it takes to drive down emissions and tackle the climate crisis so my kids, and all members' kids, can have the kind of stable future, prosperous economy and good quality of life that I and my parents enjoyed. That is what we need. This motion would do not achieve that.

When we talk about the cost of the climate crisis, it is astronomical. If we do not act in a definitive way, not only to drive down emissions but to adapt our communities and our infrastructure, we will pay dearly for this crisis.

In British Columbia, we have already felt that. We lost the entire community of Lytton, which burned to the ground. Flooding in the Lower Mainland took out a huge amount of key infrastructure and crippled our supply chain just this past year. In 2018, there were devastating wildfires across northwest B.C. that affected so many parts of our economy and community.

This crisis deserves a serious approach. The affordability crisis and the crisis of inflation and food prices are serious issues that deserve a serious approach. We do that by cracking down on profiteering. We do that by having a real climate plan that uses credible evidence-based tools to drive down emissions. I am agnostic as to whether those are regulations or pricing mechanisms.

We need urgent action and political leaders who have a plan, who are transparent about their plan and can tell the Canadian people that this is the issue of our time and they intend to tackle it with all the seriousness that it deserves. Our kids are worth it. People in our communities who are struggling with the price of food are worth it. Seniors in Terrace, Smithers, Prince Rupert and Kitimat who cannot afford groceries are worth it.

Motions like this, which are inherently deceptive and try to fool British Columbians, Quebec residents and people across the country into believing that somehow removing carbon pricing from certain sectors is going to solve these problems, frankly, are unfair, unjust, and not the way to approach very serious issues in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues I have brought up is that the Conservatives seem to be on their own island when it comes to the price on pollution, but it has not always been that way. As the member will recall, in the last federal election, all major national parties supported a price on pollution. Even the Conservatives made a commitment to have a price on pollution. I wonder if he can provide his thoughts on this, that what the Conservative said at that time was fairly misleading, given the fact they told the electorate that they would support a price on pollution and given the position they are taking today.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, honesty in politics is one of the most important things. All political leaders need to be upfront and transparent with Canadians about how they intend to tackle the biggest issues of our time. When they do that, it needs to be based on evidence and they need to show the work, show the math, and how they will actually tackle the problems we face.

We know a lot about the climate crisis. The majority of Canadians support urgent action on the climate crisis. However, I would argue that the government has not done nearly enough in this regard. We need policies that are rigorous enough to drive down emissions and ensure it is done in a way that is affordable for Canadians. At the end of the day, the numbers do not lie, and Canada's numbers are not good.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I like the revisionist history in my colleague's speech and the colleague across the way. Positions change. It was only in 2009 when the NDP leader in B.C. was going to scrap the carbon tax. She felt that it was going to be punishing for B.C. residents. It is ironic that there is this massive change in position now.

The New Democrats position on this upsets me a bit. They are going support Bill C-234,, and I appreciate that. It is an important message to our producers. This motion is very similar. We would be expanding the exemptions on the carbon tax. I do not want to see this dividing one area of Canada from another; people in B.C., Quebec and the rest of Canada who are paying the carbon tax. This would help B.C. farmers.

B.C. farmers are buying fertilizer. B.C. farmers are moving cattle from one area of the country to the other. Would my colleague not agree that his farmers will be impacted by the carbon price in 2030, which will cost every farmer at least $150,000 a year? How does he expect his farmers in Skeena—Bulkley Valley to absorb that cost?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague noted, we support targeted efforts to help the farming industry, and we have supported the private member's bill brought forward by his party. It is one approach and certainly something that has been well received.

However, the reality is that the measures in the motion before us would not be equally applied across the country. If we are talking about helping farmers, let us have proposals that help all farmers across the country, not just ones in some provinces that happen to pay the federal carbon price. That would be a fair approach and it is an approach that I would be more willing to look at.