Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2023

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Pause on Home Heating

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, we are hearing an inability to see the point of the motion. Heat pumps are fine. My parents are using a heat pump right now. That is not the issue at hand. The Liberals are not serving 97% of Canadians with what they are doing. They decided to give a break to some Canadians.

The reality is that it is not a luxury to heat one's home. The efficiency of the heat pump drastically goes down. It is like using electricity. That is the science of it. It is just common sense. If the government does not pause the carbon tax for everyone, then it is discriminating against 97% of Canadians.

That is what we are asking today.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am confused. We have heard the opposition talk about the fact that the Alberta NDP has been pushing back against what the government has done, yet the Alberta NDP put forward an emergency motion in our legislature that said that the legislative assembly recognized that carbon dioxide emissions contributed to a changing climate. They talked about wildfires, evacuations and extreme weather events. Then they went on to talk about the fact that we needed to apply the same programs across the country for home heating. However, the Conservatives in Alberta voted against it because it had references to the need for a climate plan.

We have not heard this from the Conservatives yet. What is their climate plan? Could the member tell me what they plan to do to deal with the biggest crisis of our time right now, the climate crisis? As far as I could tell from her speech, she does not even admit it is real.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to unpack in that member's question.

First, shame on that member for being a representative of a party that keeps the Prime Minister in power and continues to make Canadians suffer.

Second, I would challenge her to check out the recent CBC/Radio Canada article, in which whistle-blowers are saying that they provided secret recordings by Liberal bureaucrats, the outright incompetence of their green fund. That $1-billion green slush fund is a sponsorship scandal-level kind of giveaway. That is not an environmental plan. That is another scandal, another misuse of taxpayer dollars, propped up by the NDP. Now those members are trying to distract. They are now stating a falsehood.

There was no motion from the NDP to take GST off of home heating. The members are distracting from their plan to have a carbon tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there was in fact a motion that the Conservatives teamed up with the Liberals to defeat—

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

That is a point of clarification and debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the Prime Minister has said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” In reality what he has done is to pit a Canadian against a Canadian against a Canadian.

The member talked about how it was not equal across the country and about the big challenges. I would like to hear more from her on those issues.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we see it every day in the House. Canadians at home see it. They see who he really is. This is the reality of what we are dealing with.

This is an ideological government that believes it is going to save us. It is going to create the problem, make life unaffordable, drive up inflation, give punitive taxes and then come back and offer a little rebate from a scandal-level slush fund. Its moral integrity is gone, the agenda, everything. Divide, distract and power is the agenda of the Prime Minister, propped up by the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate an opposition day motion from the Conservative Party. As I read the text of the motion, and this is a common occurrence, I find the need to clarify and provide more context to what the Conservatives are calling for. This follows a very important government announcement last week. If we look at the text of the motion, it provides no clarity, no context and no actual solution for how the Conservative Party would deal with a very acute national issue, about which I look forward to talking to with all my colleagues today.

Before I start talking about what the government announced last week, it is important to talk about why there is a carbon price system at all. We are here because we are experiencing more and more dramatic and extreme weather as a result of climate change. Colleagues across the country will have experienced this as well.

My home province has had the worst forest fires in its history. Indeed, that was a reality across the country. We had hurricane Fiona. I have talked to constituents about this. Hurricanes used to happen maybe once a decade on the Atlantic coast and in Nova Scotia. They are happening every year now. In some cases, they are subject to having two storms.

The science is clear. Generally, most parliamentarians in this place believe in the importance of moving forward. Carbon pricing is an effective way to do that. Seventy-seven jurisdictions around the world have a form of carbon pricing. Last election, the Conservative Party ran on a carbon price. Canada is not alone in this regard. It is an important tool to being sure we can drive forward.

The way that the government introduced the system was to be very mindful of balancing affordability. I just listened to the member for Peterborough—Kawartha. She is not entitled to her own facts. The facts are that the Parliamentary Budget Office has consistently shown that eight out of 10 families receive more money back from the climate action incentive payments than what they pay in any form of carbon pricing.

That is not my fact. That is not the member for Peterborough—Kawartha's fact. That is from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent member of this Parliament, who provides that reality.

Carbon pricing in our environmental strategy is working. Notwithstanding that we never hear comments or concerns from the Conservative Party about environmental concerns or a plan, we are the only government in the history of our country that has actually reduced GHG emissions and grown the economy at the same time. Again, that is a fact. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, but I am proud of being part of a government caucus and a government that has been focused on that number one question. I cannot say the same for the official opposition.

That is the contrast. As I have said before, I am not seeing any plan, any vision or any desire to want to jointly address the questions, right now, of affordability and environment. As I have said publicly, those two things have to go hand in hand. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that we have to tackle these issues at the same time. They cannot be independent.

Last week, the government made a really important announcement. As a rural member of Parliament, I am proud to see the adjustments that were made. At the end of the day, not all Canadians have the same access to change behaviour and to benefit from the climate action incentive payment program. Not all Canadians have the same tools in the fight of climate change, particularly the further we go outside major urban areas.

You represent West Nova in Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, and I represent Kings—Hants. I think it is fair to say that we both have the types of constituencies where there is some basic form of public transit, but it is not available to all our constituents. There are many instances were the people we represent have to drive longer distances and do not have the same tools as people living in major cities, like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.

The government did recognize that in what it originally introduced as a climate program under the national carbon pricing plan. There is a 10% supplement available to Canadians who live outside of a census metropolitan area. However, what the government announced last week was that this increase would go from 10% to 20%. I applaud the government for doing this. That makes a difference for rural Canadians in the federal backstop jurisdictions across the country.

It means that rural Ontarians have more money in their pockets. It means that individuals living in Saskatchewan and Alberta outside of major cities have more money to help support and recognize the lived differences between them and Canadians who live in major urban areas. It is equity in ensuring that this is in place, and the government was smart and mindful to make that change.

One million Canadians use home heating oil across the country: 286,000 in Atlantic Canada; 465,000 in Quebec; 266,000 in Ontario; approximately 30,000 in the Prairie provinces; and 88,000 in British Columbia. I do not have the statistics for northern Canada in front of me, but I know many northerners use heating oil as well.

This is an acute issue, because the reality is that heating oil is two to four times more expensive than other conventional means to heating homes. There is a clear economic incentive to change from a home heating oil furnace. If people at home right now have a furnace that uses oil to heat their home and if they have some money in their bank account, I would humbly suggest they look at finding ways to get off heating oil, because it is vastly more expensive and it is also terrible in an environmental sense.

We do not hold Canadians responsible for the fact that they have certain living circumstances and use oil to heat their homes. There are vulnerable Canadians across the country, in the ridings of the official opposition, in the ridings of the government caucus. I would hazard a guess that every member in this place has some people in their riding who use heating oil. However, we have an interest, as a government, to help those people who may not have the means to change their behaviour themselves.

If people do not actually have the money to take on a project to reduce their reliance on heating oil, then they are stuck. That is exactly why the government launched a program in the fall of 2022 specific to those Canadians, to help them try to make a transition. There is a $10,000 federal grant available to any Canadian who wants to make a transition. The $10,000 grant is available to those of low and medium income. The government has a program that is more loans-based, with zero interest, for those of higher income. However, there are federal resources available across the country.

I will read some statistics, as they inform the debate and the conversation we are having about equity. The equity has been framed around one source of heating oil with no context about the price differential.

For members living in Ontario, I want them to know that if they have people using home heating oil, they are paying, on average, $3,400 a year on that oil. For those on natural gas, it is $900 a year. Therefore, oil is almost four times the amount. If people do not have the money, how do they get off of it? They are in a vicious cycle, using the most expensive fuel to heat their home, and they do not have the money to get off the source they are using. In Regina and Saskatchewan, it is the same thing, $1,400 for natural gas on a yearly basis compared $4,500 for heating oil. In Vancouver, it is $600 for natural gas and $1,800 for heating oil. Also, the prices have gone up 73% over the last two years.

I hear the member for Perth—Wellington saying, “I wonder why.” It is not because of carbon pricing. It is that the level of rhetoric from the other side that shows those members do not understand the fundamental market difficulties of Canadians who are in this situation.

That is why we have launched a national program, which was $250 million. It was available and remains available to all Canadians.

However, what the Prime Minister announced last week was balancing affordability and environmental progress together. He announced that we would augment that plan and temporarily pause carbon pricing on home heating oil. Let us remember that there are a million Canadians who are vulnerable and are paying in excess of anywhere between two to four times the amount that other Canadians are paying on their heating bills.

We launched a program in partnership with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the support for Canadians who are in difficult situations. People who are below the provincial median income in my riding and your riding, Mr. Speaker, are going to benefit from a federal grant of up to $15,000 with the Province of Nova Scotia supporting the remaining $5,000. There is a $250 incentive to join the program. We are going to help people actually make a transition off heating oil. It is good for the environment, it is good for affordability and it matters to the most vulnerable Canadians.

I want to give members an example from my riding. Mr. Speaker, you have been there. It was out in rural Hants County, on the Hants shore in Walton. I talked to a woman named Doris. It was about this time last year when we launched some of the programs. She said she was glad to see there was a $10,000 grant she could access, but she was on a senior's pension and the guaranteed income supplement. She did not have a lot of extra money at the end of the month; things were tight. She said she would love to take on the program, but she was quoted $17,000 to $18,000 for the project. She cannot, even though the government is there trying to help, access the program.

Now, Doris in Walton is going to be able to benefit from a program of cost delivery between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. Not only is that good for the environment, but more importantly, in the affordability context, it is good for Doris. It is going to save her thousands of dollars a year. I do not hear any solutions from the official opposition of what it is going to do long term. Yes, it would remove approximately 20¢ from Doris's bill each year. We have done that. We have paused the carbon price because we recognize there is a group of Canadians who simply cannot make the transition.

Why would we have a carbon price when we are literally launching a national program to help them out? We have gotten rid of the carbon price. We have done what the Conservatives would do, but we have gone a step further. We have offered Doris a long-term solution to help her make that transition. I do not hear the Conservatives even talking about that program. Great, the Conservatives' plan on affordability is to offer Doris 20¢ off per litre, on average, from her home heating bill, which runs about $1.88 per litre right now. It would be down to $1.68; well done, Conservatives.

Guess what we are going to offer Doris? We are going to offer Doris $2,500 a year in cost savings that she can then use to support herself in other ways. That is a good program. That is actually having a vision to focus on the transition and helping people out, and I do not hear that. Again, I have touched a bit on the exemption. This is a conversation. At the end of the day, we have seen some pundits here in Ottawa. Some say we are undermining the carbon system. No, we are not. We are tying a specific pause to a carbon price with a program for people who are too vulnerable to make the transition, and who have all the economic incentive to change because they are paying four times the energy bill. If they had the money, they would have already transitioned.

These people exist across the country. Is it acute in Atlantic Canada? Absolutely. I am proud of the fact that the government has addressed this. I am proud to be able to go home and tell my constituents we have a solution for them. I am proud that, whether I go to northern Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, I will be able to tell people in the same situation that we have a solution for them too.

The way the Conservative Party has framed this is that somehow this is just for one region, but it is not. It is available for the whole country. The 30,000 households in the prairie provinces that use heating oil, that are vulnerable, that cannot make a transition and are paying four times the price of natural gas, do they not deserve a break too? Do they not deserve a government that is focused on meeting their needs? I have not heard one word from the Conservatives on that whatsoever.

At the end of the day, that is exactly what we have done. What we announced last week is good news for the entire country. It is particularly good news for rural and regional Canada. I am proud, as a member of Parliament representing a rural riding, to have offered thoughtful solutions and adjustments to a national policy, instead of a tear-it-down approach on the other side. Remember that the Conservatives are offering to remove approximately 20¢ off home heating bills. We are offering long-term solutions to actually help people make a transition. That is the difference and Canadians will take notice about what we are doing.

We are focused on vulnerable households. I listened to the leader of the official opposition, and there was not one word about the one million Canadians who are in a very difficult position in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, with 465,000 households in Quebec. It is very difficult situation that they are in.

Again, I want to highlight there is federal support across the board. We have launched a specific project to augment the national program.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, instead of just standing across the way and yelling and offering simplistic solutions, I would encourage the member from Prince George to reach out to Premier Eby, because I can promise some people in Prince George right now use heating oil and are in a difficult situation.

He should direct them to the $10,000 grant that exists right now for his constituents. I hope he has. Maybe we should get some household material about whether he has actually talked about the programs the government is announcing. He should call Premier Eby and ask the premier to work together with him. He should ask him to reach out to the Government of Canada and work for the 88,000 households in British Columbia that use home heating oil.

What about the people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Yes, they are smaller communities, but these people still matter, these people who are in rural, northern communities and need help.

I want to tell the story of why we are focused and why this matters, because it has been vandalized by the Conservatives to suggest that this is only from one part of the country. It is not. It is a national question of a million households across the country.

Instead of offering simplistic solutions to save people at home very minimal amounts of money, because the actual market cost to heat their home is frankly extortionate, it is so expensive, we are not only temporarily pausing in direct correlation to a program to help people make a transition but are giving them the money to help make the transition so they are not stuck in a cycle. That is climate action.

There are some people in this country, and I have seen it, who see it as a climate step-down. No, not at all. In fact, I would point to an agency back home in my province, the Ecology Action Centre. It is saying that this is an example of action on climate and affordability at the same time. It is the pre-eminent environmental organization in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, because it understands the unique regional challenges that exist not only in the Atlantic but indeed in rural Ontario, northern Ontario.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, instead of actually talking about what the Conservatives do to help people in northern Ontario, is calling a press conference. I can only imagine what elements he would be talking about. He will probably not be talking about the fact there are 266,000 households in Ontario who would benefit from this. No, he is going to stage a press conference in front of the office of the member of Parliament for Sudbury. It is disgusting; it is sick.

Why do the Conservatives not step up with a plan? Again, they ran on carbon pricing in the last election. If they do not want to run on it this election, fine, but show Canadians an iota of evidence that they actually have a plan not only on the environment but on affordability.

I have already talked to many constituents at home, and they appreciate what the government did this week. They appreciate the fact that this matters. I have talked to some of our members on this side and indeed other members in the House. I talked to the member for York—Simcoe last night. He said, “You know, there are a lot of people in my riding who use heating oil.” He said that what was announced was going to make a difference. That is a Conservative-held riding.

There is a national program. I am proud of what the government has done. We have made sure rural Canadians are better protected and better supported under the national pricing strategy, particularly those who do not have the same ability to change behaviour. We have taken a specific look at a million Canadian households that are in a very vulnerable situation, that are paying some of the highest costs in the country to heat their homes and do not have an ability to transition. We have built and augmented a national plan.

I hope to get some questions, particularly from my NDP colleagues. Again, this was framed very quickly as an Atlantic Canada exercise. It is a national question. I know some of my NDP colleagues represent rural areas, and hopefully they will be able to opine on the importance of this project and what else we might be able to do to help those people. We are going to be focused on solutions, not rhetoric.

I am proud to stand with this government, and I look forward to answering further questions.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the member made our case for technology and not taxes. The carbon tax only makes everybody poorer and then does not allow them to have the funds to buy new technology that often is more efficient and better for the environment and all of these things. We have been making this case for a very long time. I do not know if the hon. member has heard our “technology, not taxes” line we have been saying for a very long time around these things.

The other thing I would point out is that this is an Atlantic-heavy policy, in the fact that the heat pump program he is talking about is not available in Alberta. The fact is that most Albertans would like to buy more efficient products and things like that but are unable to because the carbon tax is being placed on them for no value at all to the average person who is paying the carbon tax in Alberta and the average business that is paying carbon tax in Alberta.

A sawmill in my area pays $140,000 of carbon tax every year. How does that allow them to invest in better technology?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps the member was not in the chamber when I made my remarks specific to the fact that this program is available across the country. There is a $10,000 federal grant to vulnerable Albertan households that are still using heating oil. He should help his constituents find that program. Maybe he has not; maybe he did not know about it. I am happy to share the information after the remarks here today. This is a national program; when he stands up and says that there is not something for Alberta, it is just simply not the case.

Specific to home heating oil, it is unique, because it is highly carbon intensive. In fact, it is the worst for the environment, but it is also the highest cost for what it actually takes. That is unique. Usually there are higher intensities of carbon in more affordable fuels, and we are trying to put a carbon price to make a change in behaviour. That is not the case here. There is no sense in putting a carbon price on someone who is already vulnerable and paying the highest costs, but under the climate action incentive payments, the rebates that go, every other source of heating actually gets more money back than people pay in, but heating oil was the exception, and that is why we have moved on an exception on the carbon price specific to that.

Yes, it is an Atlantic-acute issue that I am proud to have helped champion, but it matters in his riding too. I am proud to have made a difference for his constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just reading a news article that quotes the member for Kings—Hants. He is quoted as saying, “I will tell my folks at home in Nova Scotia that are using natural gas... that at the end of the day there is other federal programs should they choose to want to help make a transition or reduce their reliance on natural gas”, yet every single organization I talked to that works in the energy space says that the federal government's greener homes program and the heat pump rebate that it provides are deeply flawed and do not work for low-income homeowners.

Will the member for Kings—Hants admit to this House that the program is broken and that it does not work for low-income Canadians, and will he commit to fixing it so that low-income homeowners get cash up front and get as much cash back as he is willing to provide for people who heat with home-heating oil?

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

Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia people using natural gas would be using a heating source that is probably one of the lowest cost in the province, and my remarks reflect the fact that there is a series of programs. With the Canada greener homes grant there is a $5,000 grant available to people.

I take notice that the member is talking about how we can make sure we front-load more money for people who are vulnerable and not specifically on heating oil. I think that is a valid conversation, but I would direct him to the fact that there is a plethora of federal programs that are available to help people regardless of the heating source they use. Heating oil in particular is a very specific chronic challenge for a vulnerable group of Canadians. That is why the government has tackled it.

We started with coal-fired electricity. We are moving to heating oil, in terms of that being a challenge, but on natural gas, if people want to look at energy efficiency programs, they do exist across the country, and they are available. Can improve them? I am happy to take some of his suggestions.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we get into this debate again, I am seeing the same omission we always see, and I will note it is particularly from our Conservative colleagues. Yes, the price on pollution, the carbon tax, went up 2¢ a litre in the last year, but it is corporate profits of the oil and gas industry that went up 18¢ a litre. There is never a word about those. In fact, when we talk about inflation, 47¢ of every dollar of inflation is directly attributed to massive increases in corporate profits. If we are going to have an honest conversation in this place about addressing affordability for Canadians, we need to talk about where inflation is directly coming from.

We have had a number of conversations over the past week on this topic. I would be curious to hear more from the member for Kings—Hants on his view on addressing this by putting in place a windfall profit tax on these excess profits of the oil and gas industry that are gouging Canadians at the pumps in the midst of a climate crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a really important point that, particularly on heating oil, it is the market that is driving the price. It has nothing to do with the carbon price, but it has to do with the cost of the heating oil itself, which is anywhere from two to four times the price of alternatives. That is exactly why the government has been laser-focused on that question with affordability programs to support it.

To answer the hon. member's question on the windfall profits, I recognize that other jurisdictions in the world have considered it and have moved forward. I said to him this week that, because the oil and gas industry is primarily located in western Canada, we have to be careful about the concept of introducing something like that, not only because there could be a capital flight of really important jobs and industries that may not necessarily invest in the country as a result, but also because the money collected under such a program should stay within the regional context. That is the suggestion I gave him. Whether or not the government moves forward on it, I do not know. It is a careful balance because there are a lot of considerations there.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kings—Hants stays up to date on the news. He reads it every day, so he knows that this week Nova Scotia Power, our provincial power utility provider, announced that the budget it had set aside for responding to dramatic weather events was around $3.5 million, and what it ended up spending in the past year was, in fact, well over $100 million on those responses. That is about a 3,000% overage on what it budgeted.

All members in the House have seen their insurance premiums go up, as have the people they represent. Members and their constituents have seen their municipal taxes go up. Both of those increases have to do with insurance companies and municipalities covering the costs of damages to infrastructure and other things from extreme storm events.

We are offering between $10,000 and $20,000 to Canadians to switch from home heating oil, which is four times as expensive as natural gas and two times as polluting, yet the Conservatives are focused on using sophistry and social media shenanigans to sow discord among Canadians over a few pennies a litre.

Would the member care to offer a reason that the Conservatives are showing such disdain not only for the environment but also for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax packed a lot in that because he is an intellectual guy and wanted to get all of that in within a minute.

There are a couple of things I would say. Let us remember why we have introduced our national programs on climate. It is that we see it every day outside our door. We saw it this summer in our neighbourhoods. He gave statistics for Nova Scotia Power with respect to the cost associated with cleaning up after storms. It is significant.

He mentioned of course the importance of being focused on concrete solutions to help people. I totally agree. Conservatives are offering that people in Nova Scotia could save somewhere between, as I understand it, 20¢ to 30¢ a litre on home heating oil, which is at $1.88 right now. We are offering that people could save thousands of dollars not only by temporarily pausing the carbon tax for the next three years but also by offering concrete solutions to reduce their reliance on a really expensive source of fuel that is not necessarily that great for the environment.

As it relates to the Conservatives' policy regarding the environment, the member will know that I feel they have very little, if any. I think that will be a question they are going to have to address as we contrast our different styles in the coming years.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the member for Halifax and the member for Kings—Hants think that 20¢ to 30¢ a litre on home heating oil is pennies. That is $200 to $300 a tank, times four tanks a year, which is $1,000 for people in carbon tax, and they are dismissing it. The great promise the member for Kings—Hants is so proud of is that the government will delay that to a 61¢ increase after the election.

Can he tell me why he thinks that is better than axing the carbon tax altogether for all home heating oil to give everyone an equal chance at saving money in this expensive, inflationary period the government has caused?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not only offering people $300 in savings, on average, because we are removing the carbon price on heating oil, but also offering people the ability to transition and to save thousands of dollars a year.

The Conservatives are offering short-term solutions. However, $300 is extremely important. People in my riding have come to me to thank me for pushing for those changes and to say that it matters. At the end of the day, we want to make sure there is a long-term solution so that they are not paying extortionate bills over the years to come.

I do not hear any of that same vision from the Conservative Party as to whether or not it even supports the idea of helping people make a transition. That is what I would say to the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.

Today is a bit like Groundhog Day. For a while now, it feels like the same day keeps coming back. Once again, we must highlight a very simple fact about the Conservative motion: it does not apply in Quebec. This was already true for the dozens of other motions the Conservatives have presented about the carbon tax. They do not apply in Quebec.

We understand that the Conservative Party is a federalist party, a Canada-wide party. Sometimes, the Conservatives want to look after Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, the Atlantic provinces. In a way, that is their job, since they are a Canada-wide party. Nonetheless, since I was elected in 2021, this has bothered me. It bothers me because I have not yet had the opportunity I so desire, which is to rise to speak on a Conservative opposition day and believe that they are looking out for or thinking about Quebec, that their proposal applies to Quebec, that it is something of interest to Quebeckers.

The first time, we thought they were looking out for their voting base in oil country. The second time, we thought they were looking out for their voters elsewhere. Today, we see the consistent truth: Quebec is of no interest to them. What interests them is the oil sector. Just this week, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said as much, in somewhat fancier terms, on a CPAC panel. The Conservative plan to fight climate change consists of three things their leader stated at their convention: subsidize the oil sector, subsidize the oil sector and subsidize the oil sector with Quebeckers’ money.

I am concerned that the Quebec Conservative caucus does not seem to have any influence. They do not seem to be heard, or to stand up for Quebeckers. If they stood up for Quebec, if it were worthwhile for Quebeckers to vote Conservative, we would be talking here about Quebec once in a while. What is interesting about these Conservative caucus members is that they are among those who joined forces to ensure carbon taxes did not apply in Quebec. They were players. They were Jean Charest’s gang. With one exception, they were his cronies.

The member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis supported Quebec's emissions trading system and Quebec's environmental sovereignty in cabinet in Quebec City. She's a friend of Jean Charest, a good friend. She was part of that. When the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was in Quebec City, he said he was in favour of Quebec's autonomy in the realm of environmental policy. That is what the Bloc Québécois is fighting for. Once he landed in Ottawa, his values evaporated. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable was one of Jean Charest's underlings in Quebec City. He was part of that gang. As one of Jean Charest's minions, he worked to defend our environmental sovereignty, but now it is radio silence. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord campaigned in support of Jean Charest's leadership bid. They were so joined at the hip, it was a wonder Mr. Charest did not have to get bigger pants so the member could fit in there with him. Now, there is nothing. Nobody is standing up for Quebec.

There is no more defending Quebec because with the Conservatives, under the current Conservative leader, it is a purity test for a Quebecker to deny the interests of Quebec, to lie to Quebec and defend the Conservative lines which are deeply flawed. Some days I tell myself I am happy there is a gym in Parliament. Members of Quebec's Conservative caucus do not get in their squats and their exercise by standing up for Quebeckers in the House. If they want to firm their thighs here, they do not do so by standing up for Quebec, because they never stand up for Quebec. They are going to get bedsores remaining seated for Quebec. They do not even ask for health transfers for them, which is what the provinces and Quebec are asking.

This worries me because there are Quebeckers who, at one time, trusted these people. They were wrong. On Bloc opposition days, which are focused on the needs of Quebec, these same Conservatives have the nerve to tell us what we should have done. They tell us we should have chosen topics that matter to Quebeckers. Yesterday, Parliament voted unanimously in favour of a motion from the Bloc Québécois asking the federal government to consult Quebec before announcing its new immigration targets.

During the vote, all Quebec members, Conservatives and Liberals alike, voted in favour of consulting Quebec. That same day, the federal government adopted and announced targets unilaterally. It did so without consulting Quebec, as was confirmed to us by the Quebec minister. Today is an opposition day and it would have been a good topic to address. The Conservatives had the opportunity to think of Quebec for the first time in years. They did not do it because a Quebecker in the Conservative Party is useless. It would have had direct consequences on the lives of Quebeckers, on the capacity to integrate, on French language training, on togetherness. Actions count.

I will speak of the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA. The Conservatives, who form the current opposition, have the opportunity to ask tons of questions during oral question period. Right now, tens of thousands of businesses are headed for bankruptcy and we are asking for a CEBA loan repayment extension. That is what chambers of commerce are asking for. We can agree that they are not part of the radical left. However, never has a Quebec Conservative stood in the House to defend our businesses, our entrepreneurial base or the investments people have made. These people have never stood up for Quebec.

Quebec has its own housing model. The Conservatives say that they favour decentralization and acknowledge that the provinces have jurisdictions. When Quebec tries to exercise its power in its areas of jurisdiction, it gets no money from Ottawa. How many times have we seen a Conservative from Quebec rise in the House to ask the government to give Quebec the $900 million it was due from income tax paid by Quebeckers? There are over 10,000 homeless people in Quebec, and the cost of housing continues to rise. It is a national crisis. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is working full time on this, but no Conservative has ever spoken on the topic.

The Conservatives have never asked for an increase in health transfers. They bowed to their leader.

The Quebec Conservatives claim to be progressive conservatives. They say this until they look at their values, then their pay, then their values again, then the money they make in Ottawa with their nice Conservative seats. That is where it stops. Suddenly, they are progressive only on statutory holidays and weekends.

When the Conservatives helped to ensure the carbon tax did not apply in Quebec, they were players. They are now on the sidelines and are trying all kinds of tricks to say that it applies in Quebec. They wanted to play wedge politics and say that the tax applies across Canada, but they did a poor job of it, as is so often the case. They were caught misleading the House.

In response, they fooled around with motions and conjured all kinds of convoluted nonsense to say that there was a second carbon tax. This second carbon tax is a regulation that will not apply until 2030. They did not know this because they did not do their homework, because the Conservatives do not listen to Quebeckers. They realized that the Quebec regulation is more restrictive and that this had no effect. They are now bending over backwards to try to explain that it is coming in through the back door or whatever.

The truth is that Alberta made $24 billion this year on oil royalties. Alberta taxes compulsively and is dependent on oil. Per person, for every dollar Quebec makes on hydroelectricity, Alberta makes 13 on oil. Furthermore, this government has no modern sales tax or personal income tax. This is the system Quebec Conservatives defend in their caucus. They are kowtowing to keep their seat.

The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier promised to resign if the current Conservative leader was elected. Today, we are not hearing the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier defend the decentralization of Quebec's environmental policy or Quebec's jurisdictions.

My political commitment is to Quebec and it is profound. We are standing up for Quebec and we are standing up for the truth. I appeal to the statesmanship of the Conservative members from Quebec. I hope that at some point they will reflect deeply on what their commitment means to them, and that one day we will be able to discuss a motion that applies to Quebec. However, that is not the case today.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was fascinated that we had the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River asking questions earlier. I wanted to respond to his question.

I was interested to see that, when the Prime Minister made the announcement on the pause on the home heating fuel carbon tax in Atlantic Canada, only Atlantic MPs were standing behind him.

Could the member speculate on why the member for Thunder Bay or the member for Sault Ste. Marie was not in that picture?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague knows that we in the Bloc Québécois defend Quebec's jurisdictions and Quebec's independence when it comes to environmental policy.

He asked me why this or that member from this or that province, members who are not in my party, supported this or that measure. What I find unfortunate is that, here in the House, not every single member from Quebec is standing up for Quebec's autonomy when it comes to environmental policy. On top of that, those folks are being paid by the federal government to misinform Quebeckers.

I hope the member will ask our Conservative colleagues from Quebec that question at some point.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what was really shocking about the Liberal announcement was that it seemed to be so much about keeping their MPs in Atlantic Canada alive.

Conservatives are now saying that the Liberals are dividing the country, but the Conservative motion is actually dividing the country. Quebec and British Columbia do not pay carbon tax. Residents in British Columbia and Quebec would not get any benefit from this.

It would have been more reasonable, as New Democrats have pushed for, if we took off the GST and the HST. This would ensure that, if we are going to have a pause, it would be fair across the country. However, what we are seeing now is that the Liberals have actually just undermined the whole principle of carbon pricing that they have been promoting.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague understands what kind of situation we are in. When I was elected to federal Parliament, I knew that Ottawa does not really care about Quebec very much. I knew that, but I never thought it was this bad. I never imagined that they would never talk about Quebec, about Quebec's interests, about respecting Quebec's environmental policy. My NDP colleague is talking to me about the GST and the QST.

Let Quebec take care of its own environmental policy. I repeat: Let Quebec take care of its own environmental policy. It is not only Quebec's jurisdiction, but Quebec is also much better at this than the federal government.