Debates of Sept. 27th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Who were they written by?

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

This is not a conversation and we do have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity as I rise in the House to talk about what is happening in another part of the world. It deserves our attention and it is important to note. Since the brutal murder of the young Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini, a widespread grassroots feminist movement has been rising in Iran. These people have the exceptional courage to stand up for freedom and democracy. I want to commend their courage. I am extremely worried about their situation, and I hope that the federal government will use every political and diplomatic tool it has to stand up for human rights, especially the rights of women in Iran.

Today we are discussing a Conservative Party motion. It is the first motion moved by the new Conservative leader during an opposition day. I thought a new leader would bring in new ideas and renewal and that we would finally talk about other things; but no, the new Conservative Party leader wants to talk about the carbon tax. For 10 years that is all the Conservative Party has been talking about, incessantly. They are absolutely obsessed with this. When they do not know what else to do, they talk about the carbon tax. I just want them to know that it is over, case closed.

The carbon tax is a good tool that works. It is not necessarily a cure-all. It will not solve every issue, but it works well in terms of putting pressure on the market so that companies and consumers adapt and change their behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint.

It is rather funny to see the Conservatives today doubling down on this obsession yet again. This is actually a market mechanism, so I do not understand. They love the free market and capitalism, and this tool relies on supply and demand, on prices and costs. However, they do not support it.

The Conservatives are also missing the point by thinking that suspending or cancelling the price on pollution is really going to make a difference in people's lives. There is no doubt that we are currently facing inflation and a rising cost of living. We see it with housing, heating, gasoline and groceries. The prices of some products are going up 12%, 13%, 15%, and sometimes even as high as 30%. The carbon tax is not responsible for that and getting rid of it will not change anything.

As my colleagues pointed out earlier, it makes no difference whatsoever to Quebeckers, because the federal carbon tax does not exist in Quebec. Where were the Conservative members from Quebec when there party was planning its opposition day? Maybe they were asleep at the wheel of their gas-powered car, pun intended.

The NDP wants to help people in tangible ways, so it forced the Liberals to take action on a number of fronts that will produce results. Bill C‑31, which was introduced when we came back to the House, is proof. The bill includes some very interesting provisions that we have been pushing for for a long time. The NDP caucus secured major gains for people, starting with the $500 rental housing benefit top-up. No, that will not change the entire housing market overnight, but it will provide some relief and may help people. In Quebec, 580,000 Quebeckers will collect that cheque because they are already on the list of people who need the federal housing benefit.

The second measure doubles the GST tax credit. Millions of people in Canada will benefit from that over the next six months. It can range from $250 to $500 per person. This is intended for the most vulnerable people in our society, those who need help the most. It is not an inflationary measure, since the proposed measures are not uniform. This is not intended for people who earn $70,000 or $100,000 a year; this is for people who are really struggling to pay for groceries or housing right now. The NDP made this happen. The leader of the NDP demanded this for six months, and he finally got it in Bill C‑31.

As for dental coverage for children, many people told us during the last election that it would be great if teenagers, seniors and children had access to coverage for essential dental care, which is obviously not aesthetic. We tried to get a real dental care program for this year, but it was too hard to get it up and running in time.

Therefore, as a first step, we are offering a compensation cheque. This is a temporary step, an interim step, but still a significant one. People who do not have supplemental insurance and who wish to take their child to the dentist must keep the bill so they can receive a maximum amount of $650 for this year, as well as a maximum amount of $650 for next year. We are then talking about a maximum amount totalling $1,300 per child.

I think that while waiting for next year, this can provide significant assistance to middle-class families who do not have supplemental insurance. Next year, we will be able to offer a program that will enable people to go to the dentist and to receive immediate payment or get their bill reimbursed. Next year, we will extend the program to include teenagers, people with disabilities and seniors aged 65 years and up in Quebec and across Canada.

Just because the NDP secured this win, it does not mean that it will stop working hard or putting pressure on the government to do more, because a lot more needs to be done. However, we think that the measures being implemented and what we asked of the government are real solutions. The tangible actions we forced the Liberal government to take will provide real benefits to the lives of ordinary Canadians. In contrast, the Conservatives' solution is extremely ideological and, in reality, it will not help all that many people. In fact, it goes against all the efforts we should be making to combat climate change.

They present the carbon tax, which is a price on pollution, as a bad thing. Are the Conservatives saying that polluting should be a right? Are they saying that pollution should not cost anything and be free of consequences? Systematically, year after year, under the Conservative government and, now, under the Liberals, we have missed our greenhouse gas emission targets, which is extremely worrisome. Canada lags behind most other countries. We continue to subsidize oil companies that are currently making record profits. We do not have the spine to tax them more, while the CEOs keep pocketing millions of dollars.

Now the Conservative Party is presenting a 25-year-old idea, one that is outdated. Furthermore, it comes at a very odd time when eastern Quebec, the Magdalen Islands and a good part of the Maritimes have just been devastated by hurricane Fiona.

This motion from the official opposition completely disregards the true urgency of the climate crisis, and that these disasters, hurricanes, droughts, floods and forest fires will occur with greater frequency and intensity. We will be increasingly unable to control the planet's climate and temperature and people will suffer more, infrastructure and homes will be destroyed and villages and roads will have to be moved. That will come at an enormous cost. The Conservatives never talk about the cost of inaction in the face of the climate crisis. Even people who are not what one would call big bad socialists are worried. Insurance companies in Canada are worried because they know it is going to cost tens of billions of dollars in the coming years.

The Conservative Party is completely disconnected from this reality and is suggesting that we get rid of the one measure that sort of works. I will come back to this, but even though this measure more or less works, we should be doing more. The Conservatives' motion is completely irresponsible and shows no regard for future generations or for the people who will suffer and are suffering from climate disturbances and the increase in so-called natural disasters. We must do more.

I now want to talk about what the Liberal government is not doing. Not only does it refuse to eliminate oil subsidies, but it has also failed to develop a plan for a just transition. We need to come up with a strategy to support the industries and the unions that represent all of the workers across Quebec and Canada to ensure that we make this energy transition, not only for the sake of the environment and the climate, but also to save jobs and create new ones in renewable energy or find new ways of working in existing sectors.

This is 2022. In 2019 the government promised to introduce a bill concerning a just green energy transition that respects workers. It has yet to do anything, even though this objective is spelled out in the mandate letters of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Labour. We are still awaiting such a bill.

I hope it comes soon because we need it. We need it if we want to solve this problem, meet our targets and respect Canada's commitments on the international stage. It is quite unsettling: Canada cannot seem to make good on the promises it makes out there. Canada signed the Paris Agreement and made commitments. The Canadian government signed the COP26 declaration, but it does not act in a consistent way.

The Liberals are extremely good at patting themselves on the back and bragging about their targets on the world stage, but they are unable to follow through. Now is the time to act.

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of what is happening across the country, in general the price on pollution has been well received. If we look at provincial jurisdictions, most provinces in Canada have their own form of price on pollution.

Then we have the federal government, which has a price on pollution in four provinces, where there is a rebate and 80% of residents are receiving more than they are actually paying out.

Does the member believe that if the Conservative Party wants to be consistent in all regions of the country, it should be meeting with the premiers to advocate that they do exactly what it is suggesting the federal government do here in Ottawa?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question highlights the fact that the Conservatives are stirring up a debate and a discussion that are five or ten years out of date. We have moved on.

Actually, we need to go further in the fight against climate change. That is why I am reiterating today that we need a plan for a just transition that includes indigenous communities, workers and unions. There needs to be a broad plan to make this transition towards creating the jobs of tomorrow, towards ongoing training for workers, and towards the portability of their retirement plans and pensions to provide support for them and for our communities. We need a plan that is targeted and regionalized according to people's needs. This has yet to be done, and we need it now.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is not working, but the Liberal government still plans to increase the tax and force Quebec to increase its tax too.

What does my colleague think of that?

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

Madam Speaker, the federal tax on carbon does not apply to Quebec. Quebec already has its own cap-and-trade system. I think the point is moot.

I would say that taxing pollution, putting a price on pollution, works because it changes people's behaviour and the choices they make. They will make a choice that is cheaper, but also greener at the same time.

This tax cannot be the only tool. It does part of the job, but it is not enough. We need a comprehensive strategy that is much broader than this simple tax.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite said that he expected the new Leader of the Opposition to bring in new ideas.

What does the member think about the fact that the new Leader of the Opposition does not know that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec?

In addition, with inflation as it is, all economists are saying that we need targeted measures. In Quebec, however, there are some people whose livelihoods are at risk. Does my colleague support highly targeted programs to help people like farmers, taxi drivers and truckers?

This is something the Bloc Québécois is proposing.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

How can the Conservative Party be unaware that the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec? I do not know. Perhaps we should ask the newly appointed Quebec lieutenant of the Conservative Party. I am not sure he has much influence over his leader right now.

As for the second part of his question, yes, our party agrees that we need targeted measures for certain economic sectors or communities. I think targeted measures to combat inflation and the rising cost of living and to facilitate the energy transition would also be worthwhile. For example, I am thinking about the electrification of transportation and public transportation, two subjects the NDP is quite fond of.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his incredible work for workers in Quebec and across Canada.

He mentioned the way workers were being impacted in his home riding. I am hoping he can expand on ways in which a New Democratic plan might provide for a just transition and actually get to the heart of the matter of inflation.

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

Madam Speaker, I think we need a federal plan to make targeted investments so that we can transition to renewable energy sources, but we also need a plan to train these workers. We need round tables where all three parties, namely the unions representing the workers, the government and the employers, can work together to make strategic decisions for the future that will lead to a better, more just economy for everyone.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, for starters, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester.

Before I get down to business, I just want to say that this is my first speech in the House since my mother passed away this summer. She was my greatest supporter. She tuned in to every single one of my speeches, interventions and television appearances.

I feel a little emotional about speaking today, knowing that she is watching but will not be sharing her thoughts with me afterward. I know she is there, as supportive as always. She was always there throughout my career. Thanks to her, my family, my brothers and I always had enough to eat. She made sure we never went hungry, even in tough times. Cancer took her life this summer. She was sick for just a few months. She was in good shape.

I just want to acknowledge my mother, who is watching us. I am sure I will hear her comments after my speech, which I already know will be excellent, because that is what she always told me. A mother is a mother, after all. Wherever she is right now, I am thinking of her.

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the motion moved by the leader of the official opposition, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax.

I would like to begin by setting the record straight on a few points.

I heard my Bloc Québécois and NDP colleagues boasting about the fact that Quebec has its own carbon pricing system. They said that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec and that the leader of the official opposition should take into account the fact that Quebec has its own system.

However, they seem to be forgetting one very important thing. Unfortunately, not everything we consume in Quebec is produced in Quebec, so Quebeckers will inevitably pay more when the Liberal government triples its carbon tax.

Not only will Quebeckers pay more because everything will be more expensive, because everything that is transported or passes through another province will be more expensive, but the federal government has made it clear that the provinces will have to adjust and ensure that their carbon pricing system reflects the figures that the Liberals want to put in place.

What does that mean?

That means that the Bloc and the NDP are supporting further federal interference in the system that was established in Quebec, in order to force Quebec to make changes to its laws to meet the federal government's tax objectives.

In other words, the poorest will once again have to pay the price for decisions made by this Liberal federal government and backed by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. That is the reality.

I do not understand how the Bloc and the NDP can ignore this situation, this clear and specific reality.

They can use words like “hypocrisy” to describe what happened and our leader's position, but what is really hypocritical is what the Bloc Québécois is trying to sell us. They know full well that Quebeckers, fathers and workers will end up paying more because of the Liberal government's decision to triple the carbon tax. Ultimately, the government's intention is to force the provinces that are not imposing the carbon tax to increase their system.

The worst part is that the government's carbon tax has successfully demonstrated that its targets do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The Liberal government failed to meet any greenhouse gas reduction targets with its promise that the carbon tax would be capped at $50 per tonne. After the election, we learned that the government intends to triple the carbon tax because it was a failure and they were unable to meet their greenhouse gas targets. Now people will have to pay three times as much. They will not be able to use their vehicles because it will cost them more, so they will emit fewer greenhouse gases. Where is the logic in the current Liberal government's attitude, other than making workers and families pay for its policy that fails to reduce greenhouse gases?

That is the reality. At this time, with the carbon tax and the government's desire to make Canadians pay more and more in taxes, with its excessive spending policies and its use of public funds to create new programs, and considering Canada's rising debt levels and record deficits, it is not surprising that everything is more expensive.

Let us imagine a mother who goes to do her grocery shopping. The first thing she sees at the grocery store is how much more fresh fruit and vegetables cost. In the meat section, a small package of chicken that used to cost $8 now costs $16. We are told that meat prices have increased by 6.5%, but that is an average of different kinds of meat. The cost of basic meat, the kind we buy to feed our families, has gone up a lot more than 6.5%, according to statistics.

Dairy prices have gone up by 7%. We need to put bread and butter on the table, but the price of bread has risen by 15.4%. In the fresh produce section, prices are up by 13.2%. Many fruits are not grown in Canada. It is expensive to ship them. We cannot produce all fruits, because many do not grow in Canada.

We are feeling the effects of this inflationary crisis. Transportation, which will be hardest hit by the tripling of the carbon tax, is the main reason prices are going up, and things are going to get even worse. The price of sugar is up 11%; fish is up 8.7%. That is what families have to contend with.

People can argue about the effects of the carbon tax, claim it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and say we all need to do our part, but experience has shown that it does not work. For it to work, people have to pay three times more tax. The government decided it was up to individuals, and only individuals, to make all the sacrifices and go without so that it can move toward meeting its own targets.

I recently witnessed what goes on at grocery stores. This is what happens in times of crisis. Stores put out flyers on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. It used to be that people would wait until the weekend to do their shopping because sale items would still be available then. That is no longer the case. Visit a grocery store any Thursday or Friday. The place is packed, and there are lineups everywhere.

People want to be sure they get the products that are on sale that week at the grocery stores so that they can put a bit more food in their cart. That is what we are seeing at the grocery stores today.

I would love for the Prime Minister to go to the grocery store every Tuesday and Thursday for two or three weeks to see what is going on. Then he could go to the store on Saturday and Sunday, and he would see that there is absolutely nothing left on the shelves, no more of the discounted products, because everything sold out quickly since people have no choice.

According to the statistics, 24% of Canadians say they have cut back how much food they buy. That means a quarter of Canadians are buying less food because everything costs more. We are in Canada. Things like that should not be happening here.

I also wanted to tell Mike's story, but I am running out of time.

We cannot allow the Liberals to make people across Canada pay the price for their decision to triple the carbon tax. If this tax hike goes through, things that people cannot afford today will become even more unaffordable tomorrow.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to share our deepest sympathies on the passing of the member's mother. I would also like to take the opportunity to give a tribute to my mother, who raised five boys just about all by herself. We are very close to my mother. She is 87 years young.

I do not know if the hon. member has followed the B.C. situation, but perhaps he could confer with his colleague sitting next to him. Interestingly enough, the Province of British Columbia was the first to put a price on pollution. It was a Conservative-leaning government. It offset the carbon price with lowering income taxes. It has the lowest income tax, by the way, in the country.

Emissions went down 14%. The economy grew by 26%. Is that not showing the way?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madame Speaker, I would like my colleague, who comes from a large family, to tell me what his parents' reaction would be tomorrow morning if they were told their gas bill was going up by 40¢ a litre.

Right now, British Columbia is one of the places where people pay the most for the gas they need to get to work or drive their kids to school. The price of a litre of gas in British Columbia is up to $2.33, according to what I hear lately from people in that province. They are bracing for a further increase of about 40¢, which would bring the price up to nearly $3 a litre.

Is that really what the member wants for the people of British Columbia? I, for one, do not want that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my condolences to him on the death of his mother. We have but one mother, and she is a significant figure in our lives.

I want to come back to what he said earlier. I did say to the Leader of the Opposition that I thought his motion was hypocritical. The reason I said that is that every time we come up against a problem, the Conservative Party positions itself as a major lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. Some time ago, in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, the Conservatives told us that gas and oil production needed to increase.

Now we are grappling with inflation, which is very complex. The Conservatives' response is a proposal to scrap the carbon tax and offer tax relief to the biggest polluter in Canada, the oil and gas sector. They say that this will miraculously enable people to afford more food. To me, that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could also refer to some of the proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois, my colleague's party, as a joke, but I will not go that far.

However, it is ironic to see how strongly the Bloc Québécois supports a federal initiative that will take more money out of the pockets of all Canadians, including Quebeckers, either directly or indirectly. At this time, I see that the Bloc Québécois is supporting the increase in federal taxes on the price of just about everything. That money will come from the pockets of all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I offer my condolences, as well, for the loss of my colleague's mother over the summer.

I would like to start by saying that I was really shocked when I heard the new leader of the Conservative Party talking about men taping up their boots. I was shocked because he failed to mention women, who also work, but then again, we know the record this current Conservative leader has on upholding the rights of women.

The fact is that, once again, the Conservative Party is talking about oil and gas as their only debate, and they are not calling out the elephant in the room, which is greedy oil and gas companies. They are talking about the price of groceries, but they are not willing to call out Galen Weston of Loblaws, which has earned record profits.

I just want to read, very quickly, a tweet from UN Secretary António Guterres on the fossil fuel industry. He said, “The fossil fuel industry is feasting on subsidies & windfall profits while household budgets shrink & our planet burns.

“We need to hold the industry and its enablers to account...I call on all developed economies to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies.”

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I am very proud of the new Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, who does not hesitate to stand up and defend women who want to provide for their entire families. He has always spoken a great deal about the role of mothers in families. The Leader of the Opposition has nothing to learn from my NDP colleague in that regard.

What we are talking about today is the cost of living for all these families, for those working hard, mothers, women, nurses, doctors, physicians, firefighters, all those people who are working hard and want to have more money in their pockets. That is what the leader of the official opposition wants to fight for, and I support him 100%, as do all my Conservative Party colleagues in this place.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons on behalf of the good people of Cumberland—Colchester. As we found out last night, we were hit very hard by hurricane Fiona. I think it bears repeating that our thoughts and prayers are with all the folks out there who continue to suffer without power and to dig out from the storm.

Primarily, we need to think of the carbon tax as exactly what it is. It is a tax. It is another tax that businesses and individuals have to pay. We are here now, of course. If other parliamentarians are not aware of this, then they must be living under a rock, but we are at the highest rates of inflation in decades. It harkens back to those days in my life in 1999 when we were coming out of those very high inflation years. Indeed, in 1990, when my wife and I bought our first car, we needed a loan and interest rates were at 18%. My lovely father-in-law was a great accountant and someone who always needed to teach one an interesting lesson. Interestingly enough, he was kind enough to give us a loan for 12%. Those kinds of things are where we are headed to now.

A big concern that I have is the cost of living. If we are talking about raising taxes, we cannot do so without talking about the cost of living. Every day, my constituency assistants receive calls from people who are unable to afford their lives. As we might say, they are being priced out of their own lives. I have spoken in the House previously about people who have had to sell their wedding bands in order to buy food.

We know that where I live, in rural Canada, it is going to be important to understand that winter is coming. I know that is a bit of a cliche from a TV show, but winter comes every year, and it is still coming. I think we need to understand what it costs to fill a barrel of oil now. Many people in rural Canada still live in single-family dwellings with oil heat, especially in Atlantic Canada. It is going to cost about $1,500 to fill one barrel of oil. Of course, if we get a bad winter it may last six weeks, but it may only last a month. When we are talking about $1,500, we all know that is a significant amount of money.

We also know that people at the current time cannot feed themselves. We have heard multiple times that the cost of groceries has gone up 10%. On top of that, the carbon tax, of course, will add many more difficulties and much more hardship on the people who live in Cumberland—Colchester. Another thing of interest is that I am very perplexed as to why the government would continue to have only one solution for a complex problem. Why continue to beat Canadians over the head with more taxes, more taxes and more taxes to fund the free-fall spending of the Liberal government? I fail to understand that.

Previously, I was a physician. What we do know is that for complex problems there are often multi-faceted solutions. For instance, when people suffer from cardiovascular disease, we know that people may take medications. We could suggest that they just take their pills, go out, eat whatever they want and live their lives. Is that appropriate? Could it make them live longer? Yes, but does it make people any healthier? I would suggest to the good folks out there that it would not actually make them healthier. How do we help people become healthier? We ask them to exercise more. We ask them to get better sleep. We ask them to help their mental health problems.

The stretch here, of course, is to understand that climate change is real and to question how we will solve that problem. They continue to push tax upon tax to solve a problem. In my mind, and I think in the minds of Conservatives across this great country, people understand that that is a solution based on only one facet of the problem. Clearly, we know it is, given the significant cost-of-living challenges of Canadians at this time and what they are really unable to afford. As, my great colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable pointed out, gasoline it is costing another 40¢ a litre.

In parts of Atlantic Canada, buying a car still poses a great difficulty. There may be many people in larger cities, and perhaps across the aisle, who can afford fancy electric cars for $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, but we know that in parts of rural Canada there are people who buy cars for $2,500 or $3,500 because that is what they can afford. We know now that adding on top of that is going to be difficult.

One of the big concerns I have is that people in Cumberland—Colchester are going to be specifically and proportionally disadvantaged by having to pay more for gasoline. We do not have mass transit. We do not have subways. We do not have those kinds of things. People rely on themselves to get to where they need to go, because that is where we have chosen to live. Therefore, should we be disproportionately affected by another 40¢ per litre on gasoline? To me, that is not really a possibility.

One of the other important things to figure out is who is paying this tax? We understand very clearly from the government that large corporations can apply for an exemption from the carbon tax. That does not really make a lot of sense to me, because we know small businesses are not eligible to have an exemption from it. We also know that small businesses are the backbone of Canada; they are the economic drivers. Therefore, small businesses have to pay the tax and large corporations do not.

We also know that individuals will end up paying more. We know that an average household is now paying $1,400 more annually for the carbon tax.

I always look at this as a shell game, that game where the ball is hidden under shells, then they are moved around and we guess what shell the ball is under. We want to know where that shell is, who is paying the tax and how much is it. These elusive answers make it more difficult to find any type of support for a carbon tax.

We need to look at other technological examples of how to do that. We know that our western partners in the great province of Alberta have the cleanest oil in the world. We also know that there are other technologies, such as carbon capture and storage. We also look to things like small modular reactors to produce pollution-free electricity.

When we look at those kinds of things, it becomes very clear that there are multiple solutions to a problem as opposed to continuing to talk about a carbon tax, which we know very clearly was originally promised at $50 per tonne and is now set to more than triple to $170 per tonne.

I would also be remiss if I did not talk about the specific situation in Nova Scotia. We know that it has made significant strides in greening its economy and reducing greenhouse gas. We also know that Premier Tim Houston has sent very pointed letters to the Minister of Environment to help understand better what Nova Scotia's position is.

To quote Premier Houston, he said that his government would outpace federal greenhouse gas reduction targets while costing Nova Scotians less than what they would pay with a federal carbon pricing system. He said, “our path to 2030 is more effective, it’s more affordable and it’s more visionary than a carbon tax.”

According to provincial documents, Nova Scotia's legislated greenhouse gas reduction target is to be at least 53%t below 2005 levels by 2030. The objective of the federal carbon tax is to be 40% to 45% below 2005 levels.

The other part of this is that it behooves us to understand that if we are to continue to not allow the provinces to be creative and if we are to continue on with this Ottawa-knows-best approach, this again is absolutely untenable. Why would Canadians believe in this carbon tax when clearly, as I have stated in multiple different ways, there are other ways to reach these targets? Continuing to bash Canadians over the head at a time when inflation is at a 40-year high is really an untenable position.

Canadians are hurting. Our offices hear from them every day. I am absolutely astounded that the members across the aisle are not hearing from their constituents as well to understand how difficult it is to function in today's world from a financial perspective. Therefore, I would suggest that perhaps the members opposite need to listen to their constituents to understand how difficult it is and then, as we might say in the vernacular, axe the tax.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to tackle a couple of things the member for Cumberland—Colchester has said.

The first is around the idea that Nova Scotia put forward a plan. I am a Nova Scotia member of Parliament. I certainly respect the fact that we have a provincial government that does a lot of good things collectively between federal and provincial, but Mr. Houston did not put forward a plan. Just simply saying that we want to get to goals without having a plan on paper is not actually pricing pollution. Therefore, I take notice that it was not really a plan; it was an aspirational document. The provincial government has followed up with something in place and we will see whether that meets the federal test with respect to being able to price pollution.

What I cannot understand is the fact that carbon pricing at its core is a Conservative principle of allowing the market to decide and drive innovation. Why does the member for Cumberland—Colchester want big bossy government programs to dictate how we reduce emissions as opposed to letting the market decide?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, very clearly, the programs that are being used in Nova Scotia are very effective and are in the best interest of that member's constituents as well. We really should be focused on that. We understand very clearly that we are in a cost of living crisis and that we need to do something for those Canadians. To continue to tax them to death really is not in the best interest of his constituents either. That is a sad reality.

The other thing we need to understand is that we hear the government talk out of both sides of its mouth. It is asking now for technological advances from businesses, while on the other side it is wanting to tax them. Therefore, it is interfering with the free-market economy. Those two things are a really untenable position.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

If there is one thing the Conservatives are very good at, it is creating a diversion. They think that eliminating the carbon tax or the carbon tax increase will solve the whole inflation problem.

The 70% figure quoted by the experts applies to inflation all over the world. To be precise, this means that the increase in inflation is not just due to the carbon tax, but is linked to the pandemic and current economic conditions, including the repercussions of the war in Ukraine.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete solutions, such as targeting certain industries and helping low-income people, including seniors. I have a solution of my own to offer, because we also know that the Conservative Party is the champion of budget efficiency. It cost about $23 billion to buy Trans Mountain.

Would my colleague be willing to sell the pipeline to help people who are genuinely in need?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to understand clearly is that adding more fuel to the inflationary fire is really not going to make this situation any better for average Canadians. It is also important that we do understand the plight of Canadians and that we understand that our transition away from fossil fuels, and there will be one, will be long and difficult.

When we look at the number of cars that are on the road today, there is no viable way to take an internal combustion engine and turn it into an electric vehicle.

My question would be how we would do that quickly and effectively, and using a carbon tax that has not been proven to reduce emissions at all really seems like a silly way to continue and it is damaging the financial position of Canadians.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, noticeably missing from the debate today is any talk of climate change in the north. In Nunavut, housing investments are missing, tundra is melting and infrastructure is not climate resilient.

Why do the Conservatives continue to stand up for massive profits of corporate oil and gas, rather than support the taxation that is involved and needed to fight climate change?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that large corporations can be exempt from this carbon tax. To me, that really does not make any sense. We know that the cost of living crisis is hitting northern communities particularly hard. Continuing to increase their cost of fuel and the delivery of goods is going to be a significant hardship for those in the north, and we need to put those Canadians first.