Debates of Dec. 8th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member acknowledging that the carbon tax may not work. I appreciate the member acknowledging that Canadians are struggling to pay their bills. What I do not understand is how there is a complete disconnect in the House in that $500 billion of debt, 40% of which had nothing to do with COVID, is not driving up inflation and is not making life harder. That is more than $200 billion wasted, according to the Auditor General who, apparently, the Liberals do not listen to anymore.

We have heard it from experts. We have heard it from the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We have heard it from economists across the country. I cannot understand how members in the House can stand up and say that the cost of government is not driving up the cost of everything else in the country. We have a solution today, and members can support it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things that the Conservatives have broken promises on. They broke a promise to bring in a price on carbon. They broke a promise to remove the GST on home heating, which is something they had in their last couple of campaigns. Then they brought forward a motion today that is unenforceable in many of the jurisdictions in this country.

We need to have a real conversation. The member talked about the disconnect with the debt, but what she did not talk about is the disconnect with the record profits. We do not need experts. Everyday Canadians know that big corporations are having record profits in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the government is not charging an excess profit tax like many countries. The U.K., Germany and other Conservative governments around the world have an excess profit tax. Germany also has a carbon tax, as does the EU, Japan, U.K., New Zealand, Sweden and Norway.

When will the Conservatives get on board and understand that we need to make sure that some of those excess profits are returned to Canadians to help take the pressure off them?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I get that the member does not like the opposition motion, and perhaps he can use his own day, but NDP members consistently choose politics over principle. They are there to protect their pensions over the paycheques of Canadians. They are choosing to tell Canadians about GST on heating when they voted to triple the carbon tax. They are supporting the government. The NDP—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process we have with our rules in the House. Opposition members are afforded the opportunity to bring opposition day motions. I have talked about this in the past in terms of how opposition parties will establish different types of priorities.

I will give credit to the Conservatives. They are definitely focused. They are focused on the price on pollution. They are on a little island of their own, not only here in Canada but around the world, where they are now convinced that a price on pollution is bad.

I believe this is the seventh time the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, has decided to bring this issue to the floor. I do not know if it is because it likes to feel really important, being the only party in the House that supports getting rid of a price on pollution.

After all, the Bloc supports a price on pollution. The New Democrats support a price on pollution. Members of the Green Party support a price on pollution. We all know the Government of Canada supports a price on pollution. It should be no surprise.

Back in 2015, the world came together in Paris. In the dialogue that occurred there, Canada was well represented by all sorts of stakeholders, including provincial entities. What came out of that, and was one of the ideas that really resonated, was the need to have a price on pollution.

Shortly after forming the government, we made the decision to listen to what Canadians were saying, appreciate the importance of our environment and implement a national policy ensuring a price on pollution.

In Canada, we were not alone. There were provincial jurisdictions that already had a price on pollution. Members might be surprised to know this, but in potentially the first jurisdiction in North America to take the principle of a price on pollution and put it into a budgetary measure, the Conservative Party did this in the province of Alberta many years ago.

The Province of Quebec, under Jean Charest, brought in a price on pollution. There have been a few leadership contests within the Conservative Party, but in the most recent one, interestingly enough, Jean Charest was one of the candidates. He received substantial support, and he too was an advocate.

His Liberal government, in the province of Quebec, brought in a price on pollution. The Province of British Columbia has a price on pollution.

People around the world are looking for ideas. We came back from the Paris conference saying we needed to get onside and recognize that a price on pollution is one of the most effective ways of being able to deal with the climate crisis of the century.

I can appreciate there are climate deniers within the Conservative Party. There are actual members of Parliament on the Conservative side who do not recognize that climate change is a reality.

When we first brought in a price on pollution, the Conservative Party actually opposed it. In the lead-up to the last election, not the last Conservative leadership race but the one before that, the Conservatives actually changed their position from their original one of opposing the price on pollution.

Just last year, during the election, the then leader of the Conservative Party actually put it forward in the Conservatives' platform. All Conservative candidates, in 338 ridings in Canada coast to coast to coast, had a platform document that said the Conservative Party of Canada supports a price on pollution.

Another leadership contest took place and the Conservatives now are not really too sure what they are saying. They just skip answering the questions when asked about the price on pollution, as I just finished demonstrating by my question for the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. They made the decision that it is just bad, that Canadians should believe them and that we should just be getting rid of the price on pollution. So says the new leader of the Conservative Party.

Do members remember the other idea the leader of the Conservative Party had, about cryptocurrency? The leader of the Conservative Party told Canadians that, if they want to fight inflation, they should invest in cryptocurrency. How did that idea pan out for the Conservative Party? Much like the most recent position of the Conservative Party on the price on pollution, that idea did not fly.

At the end of the day, those individuals who followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada have lost a great deal of money, well over 60% of their investments. In fact when I say “over 60%”, I am probably being a little conservative in that estimate, as many people have lost a lot more. Let us think of the seniors the Conservatives often talk about, as if they were advocates for seniors. We still have not even heard any regret or apology coming from the leader of the Conservative Party or from any Conservative candidate in regard to that idea.

What are the Conservatives waiting for now with the price on pollution? They like to say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, as they call it. In Winnipeg North, eight out of 10 people actually get a net benefit with the price on pollution. There is the climate incentive cheque, which is given out four times a year. The Conservatives should be saying that, if they are going to get rid of the price on pollution, they are also going to be getting rid of those rebate cheques. Winnipeg North is not alone. Eight out of every 10 homes in the country receive them.

When the Conservatives say there is going to be a tripling of the price on pollution, and of course they are not talking about this year but about an increase over the next eight years, what they do not tell Canadians is that the rebate will also increase. We have the price on pollution and we have the rebate. All the Conservatives want to talk about is the price on pollution. They are more concerned about the bumper sticker, going into the next election, saying, “Axe the carbon tax.” That is what their priority is. It is not about the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment for the Conservatives. They do not even have a plan, as has been illustrated time and again. The last time they actually had a plan was for the price on pollution, and they abandoned that plan.

The Conservative Party is not reflecting the desire of Canadians to see some sort of plan dealing with the environment. To make matters even worse, they are spreading misinformation intentionally.

If the Conservatives were to come into Winnipeg North and we were to do a bit of door knocking, the Conservative candidate would stand beside me and say they were going to get rid of the price on pollution. However, I would say that if they get rid of the price on pollution, it would mean they would also get rid of the rebate. A person would get more money because of the rebate than they would pay on the pollution, generally speaking, for 80% of my constituents. Then, not only that, but at least as a government we are recognizing that the environment does matter and is an important issue, unlike the Conservative Party.

I suspect that if the sole debate were on that issue in the constituency of Winnipeg North, I would get more votes than I received in the last federal election. I am very grateful for the over 50% I got in the last election, but I believe I would even get more support if that were the only ballot issue being decided, because the rebate puts more money in the pockets of my constituents, and it deals with the price on pollution for climate change.

When we talk about farmers, the department of agriculture spends far more today than it did when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister. In fact we are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars, well past a billion dollars, supporting farmers, supporting our prairie farmers. We had one Conservative member say that this year was the third best on record in Canada for our farmers, and in particular our prairie farmers. My focus in Manitoba is canola, wheat and flax, all of these wonderful bumper crops, not to mention the other commodities, whether in the pork industry, the cattle industry or our chicken industry. All of these industries, we value.

That is why we have a very proactive Minister of Agriculture. Not only is she proactive, but we are providing cash support. We are ensuring we can move toward a greener economy, just like other countries around the world. There is an expectation that Canada has to demonstrate leadership, and I believe it is important we do just that. By recognizing the importance of moving forward in a positive way with the environment, we will be in a much better position in the months and years ahead to ensure opportunities well into the future. We need to do this so Canada can continue to play that important role it does in the world, whether by providing food or through the many other industries Canada leads in.

The Conservative Party likes to say this is all about the issue of inflation. Inflation is a very serious issue. I like to think it does not matter what side of the House we are sitting on. We all recognize how important inflation is to address as an issue. The Conservatives bring forward a motion that really would not deal with the issue they are talking about in a tangible way that would assist the majority of Canadians. We have put into place, over the last number of months in particular, a series of policy announcements that do deal with and support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

When the Conservative Party says that it is concerned about inflation and the government needs to do more to support Canadians, unlike the Conservative Party, we are not going to sit back and just watch things take place. There is a role for government.

Before the Conservatives make the suggestion, as they are now, that government should not play a role, let me talk about the larger picture of inflation outside of Canadian boundaries. We know Canada is doing better with its inflation rate than the United States of America. We are doing better than England and many different European countries. We are well below the average of the G7 countries overall. From a world perspective, our inflation rate is doing well.

I find this interesting. I looked up the inflation rates of the United States and Canada over the last two years of Stephen Harper. I think this is appropriate, because the Conservatives are trying to tell us what we need to do, as if they have wonderful experience in dealing with inflation. In the last two years of Stephen Harper, the United States of America's inflation rate was lower than Canada's. In other words, Canada had a higher inflation rate in the last two years of Stephen Harper. Today, if we look at our administration, in the last two years our inflation rate has been lower than that of the United States.

I do not think we need to follow the advice of the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular the leader, who recommends things like cryptocurrency, to deal with the types of policies that are not only important in having an impact on the overall inflation rate, but that we can use to support Canadians at a time when inflation hurts. Even though I pointed to the U.S.A. and how Canada is doing relatively well, my constituents, like everyone else in Canada, are hurting with respect to inflation. We are very much aware of the grocery prices and how much it hurts their pocketbooks. I too am offended that farmers are putting their blood, sweat and tears into ensuring we have food production but are not reaping in huge profits or rewards for their efforts to anywhere near the same degree others are. There are things we can do to help, and I could list them off.

We can talk all we want, but the Conservatives continue to vote against measures to support Canadians, whether with respect to issues like the dental program for children under the age of 12 or the Canada housing benefit to provide rental subsidies that would benefit two million Canadians. There are already 35,000 children who have put in applications for the dental program since we brought it in a couple of weeks ago. Also, the doubling of the GST rebate for the next six months will benefit 11 million Canadians. When it comes to the Canada workers benefit, by making quarterly payments, thousands of Canadians will benefit from that. There is the elimination of the federal interest on student loans, which will benefit thousands of students, and that is not to mention child care.

This government, unlike the Conservative Party, recognizes there is something the Government of Canada can do, and I can tell members that every Liberal member of Parliament will continue to fight, day in and day out, to ensure that we can marginalize the negative impacts of inflation, because that is the right thing to do, even though as a nation we are still doing better than the U.S.A. and most G7 and G8 countries.

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

Madam Speaker, the main problem with the carbon tax is that it taxes carbon emissions without capping them. People can pollute as much as they want as long as they can afford to pay the tax. That will not necessarily reduce GHGs. Those who can afford the tax will not necessarily be motivated to reduce their GHG emissions.

In 2013, Quebec enrolled in a carbon market, which is a type of exchange or auction among greater and lesser carbon emitters that helps limit GHG emissions.

Quebec tried to encourage the other Canadian provinces and Canada to enrol in the carbon market. I have a very simple question. Why did Canada not take this route to truly cap carbon emissions not only here but across the continent?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the specifics of that answer would probably be best put, in terms of a question, to the Minister of Environment, but what I would note is that with respect to the province of Quebec, I need to recognize Jean Charest. He was, even though he was a Liberal premier at the time, very progressive in his thinking in regard to the environment. He ultimately led the country, through the province of Quebec. He was a very strong nationalist who understood that the environment matters and who led a lot of initiatives.

That is why I think, when we take a look at it, with regard to that last federal Conservative leadership race, where Jean Charest actually did quite well, he has got to be looking at the Conservative Party's positioning today from a Progressive Conservative position of saying that a price on pollution is good and remembering how he led the country through the province of Quebec while he was the premier. To see the Conservatives taking this sort of position, I suspect there are a lot of Conservatives who are wondering what the heck has happened to the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North spoke about all the great work that the Liberals are perceived, in his mind, to have done. I would like to ask him if he could explain to the House why they felt the need to give CERB payments to prisoners.

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

What does this have to do with the motion?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I am being asked what this has to do with the motion. It is inflationary spending, which has led to the cost of living crisis that we are in.

Could the member explain the need for prisoners and public servants to be paid CERB, or for high school students living at home to be paid CERB? I wonder if he could explain to the taxpayers of Canada why that was necessary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am not going to blame the recipients of CERB payments as the reason for inflation. Families found it very difficult. We are talking about millions of families, nine million families, virtually, who needed to have CERB for a wide variety of reasons.

The Conservative Party might want to try to blame those families, but from the government's perspective we needed to be there to support Canadians going through the pandemic. Had the Conservatives been in power, it is obvious that they might not have done that.

As the result of a Liberal government doing it, as a result of a Prime Minister who understood the importance of having Canadians' backs, we were in a better position to be able to get out of the pandemic in the fashion in which we have. I will compare our record to any G8 country that is there today. We have done exceptionally well. There is always room for improvement, and at the end of the day I look forward to continuing the dialogue on that particular issue.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for listing all the initiatives that the NDP have brought forward, like dental care and the rent subsidy, but my question for him is a bit more concrete. I have been sitting in the House all week, listening to the Liberals asking Conservatives how they can face their constituents when the Conservatives promised to put a price on pollution and are now against it.

I am wondering how the member faces his constituents when the Liberal government promised to put that price on pollution and promised to deal with our climate crisis and has done so in such a poor way that we have met none of our targets and are at the bottom of the barrel for actually dealing with the climate crisis in this country.

On one side, we have some Conservatives who have been, frankly, very dishonest with their constituents. On the other side, we have the government, which has actually done nothing for our climate crisis.

How does he face his constituents?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I talk to my constituents about putting into place a national policy, so that in every province, no matter where a person lives, there is a price on pollution. I talk about the two billion trees that are going to be planted as a result of policy.

It is interesting. We often get the question, “Where are those two billion trees?” They start as seedlings, and it takes a little while for them to grow. I am very confident that we will continue to look at ways, whether it is the banning of single-use plastics or the planting of trees or having a price on pollution, not to mention the numerous budgetary measures to support getting Canada on the right road to a greener economy. That is what I would be telling my constituents.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member knows through the interventions I have shared in this place that if the governing party were serious about the climate crisis, it would start by taking the Canada recovery dividend that is already in Bill C-32 and apply it to oil and gas companies.

I will move to a different topic. One thing I think we agree on is addressing affordability, particularly for those who need it the most, and that is people with disabilities across the country who are disproportionately living in poverty today. They have been calling out for an emergency response benefit to address the rising cost of living, food and day-to-day life. If all parliamentarians were serious about addressing affordability in this place, they would be directing funding to those living with disabilities.

Could the member share his level of support for addressing poverty for those living with disabilities through an emergency response benefit?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the issue of disabilities and how we can assist and support those disabilities was really amplified by the problems during the pandemic, when it came time to ensure that we could provide direct payments to people with disabilities.

At the time I thought it took a while before we could ultimately create the databank or the mechanism that would ensure there would be a disability payment going out. We were able to do that. I know the minister responsible also has some fairly historic legislation. I do not necessarily know all the details of it. I am open to it. In the legislation the member just referenced, there is the intergenerational credit for housing, which helps seniors and people with a disability for whom additional suites can be built. That is a positive thing.

This might not be the type of detailed answer the member would want, but that is the best I can give at this point.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to give the hon. member a chance to highlight, once again, the things we have done as a government to support Canadians through this affordability crisis, and compare them to what Conservatives have supported or not supported.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I happen to have a list here.

The doubling of the GST rebate for six months helps 11 million people. The Conservatives originally opposed it, as the member might recall, but they were shamed into supporting it. We are glad they flip-flopped. We thank them very much.

The Canada housing benefit was opposed by the Conservatives. That was to help two million people with rental support.

The Canada dental benefit is the program that 35,000 children have already put in an application for. The Conservatives opposed that one, too.

The Canada workers benefit creates more payments and helps at a time of need, i.e. a time of high inflation, as the member knows. The Conservatives opposed that one too.

Wiping out the federal interest on Canada student loans was also opposed by the Conservatives, unfortunately.

Child care is a really big one. We are talking about a lot of money. The Conservatives said it was absolutely wasted and we should not have done it. It was to ensure that child care is affordable from coast to coast to coast. In fact, Conservatives say they will rip it up and will not support it. Obviously, they voted against that.

If I had more time, I am sure I could come up with even more details.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise today in the House to address the concerns of my constituents in Perth—Wellington and Canadians across the country.

I will be splitting my time with my deal colleague, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, Madam Speaker.

It is appropriate that we, as the Conservative opposition, are debating this opposition day motion today. Today is the last opportunity that the opposition can bring forward an opposition day motion. We are focusing on the issues that we have been hearing about from constituents over the past year and before. These are issues we have been raising time and time again in the House, in question period, and the issues we are hearing time and time again from constituents in our ridings across the country.

The cost of living and the cost of everyday essentials keep going up. We hear this from constituents who are struggling with home heating, groceries and putting gas in their tanks. I have been receiving emails and phone calls daily, hourly, by the minute basically, from constituents sharing their concerns with me.

Sam from Arthur wrote me a heartbreaking email about how she and her husband, a carpenter, were nearing retirement and they were struggling to get by. She wrote:

“Balancing a budget was incredibly difficult before COVID but now it is beyond me. Speaking for myself, basic essential groceries absorb at least half of my income....In our case, we tried to plan well. We took care of my husband's parents until they required fulltime care and we did our very best to conduct our affairs in the right way, for the right reasons. Now that we are at the point where we should be celebrating life with each other, we are struggling to try to make ends meet!”

Sam is not alone. She expresses the concerns of so many in our communities.

Danny from St. Marys wrote:

“I have been very closely watching the parliament broadcasts and what is going on with gas prices and the inflation that is going on right now. Honestly, I am very disgusted with the way the Liberal Government is looking at these issues. I am disgusted with the way the Liberal Government continues to misinform, evade, and deflect on every single topic.”

“My weekly gas price to go to and from work was approx. $150.00 a week, that is now $250.00 a week. My Wife and I generally buy the same groceries all the time, our grocery bill has gone from $160 a week to $25 0 a week. This is 200 a week more that is being spent each and every week right now. That is pretty close to $1000 a month, just in inflation.”

Anthony from Perth South wrote, “I have a really big concern with the gas prices. When are we going to see affordable prices? Buying an electric car is not a viable option given the cost even for a used car.”

Pam from Mount Forest in the north part of Wellington County wrote:

“I almost cried talking to my husband last night about how much our expenses have been in the past month. Last weekend we picked up a modest "freezer pack" and a few other things from the butcher, which was over $450 and being realistic it will last my family of four MAYBE a month. Then picked up our groceries ... another $250. $700 and we will have to get more from the grocery store the end of this week."

Walter from West Perth had to go back to work after retiring. He wrote, “Gas is driving everything up except for my pension, so now I get to go back to work. So much for a nice retirement. There has to be a way to get this liberal govt under control or out of office."

People in Perth—Wellington are struggling. People across Canada are struggling. While the Liberal government is making more and more inflationary spending, the impact of this inflationary spending drives up the prices and makes matters worse for everyday Canadians.

Over the past few months, the Liberal response to the criticism has varied from pathetic to downright infuriating. This past Monday in question period, I asked the government about the cost of groceries and the rising number of Canadians who were forced to use food banks. How did the government respond? The parliamentary secretary gave a non-answer, repeating the same false claim that the carbon tax was necessary to fight climate change, yet, as we have seen, emissions keep going up as the carbon tax goes up. These evasive and cowardly answers fail to address the real concerns.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have taken the approach that if they say the same thing time and time again, it might eventually become true. The fact is that it has not. The carbon tax has the impact of driving up the costs of growing, processing and transporting food, making it more expensive for farmers, farm families and Canadians across the country who are trying to feed their families.

Yesterday, I was up in question period again and asked another question that received an evasive answer. Instead of getting a response from the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance, I received a response from a different minister, who took the opportunity to boast about the money that went out for CERB. What she neglected to acknowledge was that the day before, the Auditor General reported that nearly $13.4 billion had gone out in overpayments to those who were ineligible or to people who should be investigated further. She also said that those in prison received the CERB.

When a Liberal minister stands and says the Liberals' spending is helping those in need, it simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Creating more and more inflationary spending will only drive up the costs in the short term and in the long term create structural economic problems, which have been going on since 2015.

When we are out visiting our constituents, we often get asked what we would do if we were in power. This opposition day motion is our answer. We would take the carbon tax off all food inputs, all inputs that are used for production of the food that feeds each and every Canadian. We have been trying to do this for months now.

In March, we had a motion calling for a tax reduction on gas and diesel prices. The Liberals and NDP rejected it. In September, we introduced a motion calling for a moratorium on new taxes. The Liberals and NDP rejected it. In October, we introduced a motion calling for a tax exemption on home heating. The Liberals and NDP rejected it. This is in Canada, where it gets exceptionally cold in the winter, and they rejected our call to remove the carbon tax on home heating. Every time we propose meaningful solutions for families and Canadians across the country, these proposals get rejected.

What would this motion do? On our last day of the supply period, we call for five simple things: to cancel the carbon tax on farm fuels, grain, drying, fertilizer, transportation and other appropriate aspects of the food supply system. Canada quite literally helps to feed the world, but we are handcuffed in that ability when the input costs keep going up on farmers and farm families.

In fact, just yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which I had the honour to sit in on, the member for Regina—Lewvan asked a very simple question of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The member asked, “Madam Minister, do you know what percentage of Canadian farms are family-owned farms?” The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food responded “No.” The answer to that is 95% of farms in Canada are family owned.

Farm families feed families across Canada, and this motion serves to make it more affordable for farm families to feed our country and more affordable for families to feed their families. When we read heartbreaking emails each day about families struggling to make ends meet or when we hear that 1.5 million Canadians are using a food bank in a given month, half a million of those being children, we have the opportunity and the necessity to act. We need to remove the carbon tax on essentials. We need to remove the carbon tax on what it takes to feed our country.

We put this motion before the House, and I am incredibly hopeful that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois will join our Conservative opposition in making it more affordable for Canadians to feed their families.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I want to read something for the member. It says, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” This is from the platform that the member ran on and was elected on in his riding on September 20, 2021. He ran on a platform of pricing pollution, and now the Conservatives stand before the House and suggest they are dead set against it. The people who voted for him thought he believed in this. How can the Conservatives be so hypocritical as to now come and demand everything but this option of pricing pollution?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Kingston and the Islands quoting from our 2021 platform. I would encourage him to read the whole thing because there is a lot of good stuff in it. If he wishes, I would encourage the member to steal any ideas from it, because there are some great ideas in it.

What we promised in our platform was to make life affordable for Canadians. We were against a consumer carbon tax. We were against forcing Canadians to bear the brunt. We were against making it harder and harder for Canadians to afford to feed their families.

In fact, if he keeps reading that platform, he will see that we were in favour of a grocery code of conduct. That was one of the key elements of our platform and it would have reined in the powers of the grocery store to make it more affordable for Canadians, while supporting farmers, farm families and Canadians across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, let us review for a moment. In 2020, the price of gas was under a dollar per litre. People talked about how cheap that was. I told my partner that oil companies would get their revenge once people went back to work and started driving again. That is exactly what happened. In some places, prices climbed over two dollars. The oil companies may have lost money, but they got it all back and more later.

Would it not be a good idea to limit or index oil companies' massive profits in an attempt to shut down what is basically a coalition that drives up the price of a litre of gas?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for the question.

Let us be clear. Many Canadians work in the oil industry and that industry provides a lot of benefits to our economy. It contributes nearly $48 billion to the government in taxes. Canadians need to be able to drive to get to work.

What is more, it is important that we, as members of the opposition, propose ideas and solutions to make life more affordable for Canadians.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, while I certainly do not agree with many of the things the member brought forward, it was interesting.

He did talk about how we could make things more affordable for Canadians. I think and hope that is something everyone in the House is eager to do. However, the Conservatives have voted against many of the initiatives that the NDP have brought forward, things like dental care, the rent subsidy; taking GST off of home heating.

One of the other things that we could be doing, that we should be doing, is what the Conservative Party in the U.K. is doing. It has put in place a 25% excess profit tax on companies that made massive profits during the pandemic.

Would he vote against that initiative as well or would he be supportive of something like that?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on ideas from different parties and different countries. One of the things I always think is important to do is to look to other jurisdictions and see what they have proposed. In fact, in 2009, the British Columbia New Democrats had a great idea. I am quoting from a headline from the very respectable Toronto Star, which said “B.C. NDP promises to kill carbon tax.” That is a great idea and one that we as Canadians would support.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to follow my colleague who gave a very entertaining speech. It is always a great honour for all of us to stand in our place to speak on behalf of the communities that elected us.

The debate today is about a motion we put forward that we think is very reasonable in the economic crisis we are experiencing right now, this cost of living crisis. It is a motion that calls on the government to remove the carbon tax on all those input costs of the food processes we have, whether it is through agriculture, or in my part of the world, elements that are affected by the pricing on fishing.

It is important because the carbon tax is really a tax on everything. Most people are probably aware of that, but the primary reason we are having this inflationary, some say a just inflationary, type of period is that we have a tax that is applied to everything, and it is pushing the prices up, combined with government spending.

I would like my colleagues here to understand a little bit about the effect of these costs. Some here, as we are paid a fairly good salary, may not feel the pinch the same way as people in my community do, where the median individual income is $20,000 a year and the median household income is only $44,000 a year. We are forced, in our province, to heat with either oil, 53% of which is oil that comes from Saudi Arabia, so dirty Saudi Arabian oil, or with electricity, which is generated in Nova Scotia with coal, of which 60% comes from Colombia. Therefore, we do not have the choice, because of decisions of the government, to use clean Canadian energy in our province. We are forced to use these methods, which is dramatically increasing the cost of living. When one has a median income of $20,000, these increases are huge.

Some of the constituents have written to me, and we are all getting calls, I am sure, on all sides of the House, from people who are suffering. I will tell members what Jeff Kinar from riding wrote to me.

He said that he was absolutely shocked to pay over $2 a litre for diesel for his truck. He is a pensioner living in a rural area of Nova Scotia trying to enjoy what he considers to be a well-deserved retirement. He did his time in the public service and has a modest pension income. Fortunately, he has few medical issues and he does own his own home, but these fuel prices are unbearable for those who are living in rural areas who must make regular trips to town for groceries, prescription drugs and medical appointments. He said that it was shocking to see that almost the entire crew of Liberals jaunted off to Europe while exhorting, or extorting, the Canadian public to do their part in the fight on climate change.

Now, Nancy Celic in my riding wrote—