Debates of June 1st, 2023

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is quite sad that the Liberals can only brag about lowering emissions during a time when they locked Canadians down and they literally could not drive.

Talking about the jobs they have created, they are not even at or near where they were in 2017-18, because before that, they stripped jobs out of the western oil and gas sector. They lost 100,000 jobs in 2017-18 in the oil and gas sector alone.

If they want to talk about when the economy was thriving, they should figure out the economy of Canada. All of the provinces should be involved in the economy. They should not just hit one economy over the head again and again with poor policies that lose jobs in that sector and then think they are growing the economy. They should look at it as a whole-of-Canada approach and try to make sure that all Canadians can go to work.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to listen to my Conservative colleagues talk about carbon taxes and people who are struggling to feed themselves and have to rely on food banks.

I find it hard because I have heard the member for Carleton, the leader of the official opposition, say on numerous occasions that some people are going to food banks and asking for medical assistance in dying. To say such ridiculous things reflects poorly on the member and his credibility. It is hard to believe that the Conservatives really want to help people who are struggling.

Personally, I do not know anyone who goes to a food bank and asks for medical assistance in dying. This empty rhetoric could be hurtful to people who really are requesting MAID. Can my colleague comment on that?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member does not know all Canadians. Our leader has given examples of when this has happened at food banks. It is an admonishment of the government and its junior partners, which hold it up sometimes. Lots of times the Bloc will vote with the Liberals. It is quite disturbing to me that they vote with the Liberals. It is also disturbing that Bloc members sit in the House and try to break up our country every day, but they get to sit here.

We will keep on talking about our policies and platform , which will move all Canadians forward, and they can talk about whatever they want.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the hon. member that people are suffering. They are struggling. They are desperately trying to get by. However, there are those in this country earning such incredible profits. A huge group of them is in oil and gas.

The NDP has used its opposition day motions to repeatedly call for this House to support a windfall excess profits tax, but this Conservative member has voted against it. I would like him to explain exactly why he would do that when those profits, those taxes, could go to supporting people, the same people who he says are suffering.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to congratulate Danielle Smith and the UCP on their victory over the NDP in Alberta a couple of nights ago. I do not know what kind of party would have a leader lead them after two devastating losses, but at least the member for Burnaby South has some company now, as Rachel Notley has lost two elections as well.

That is what the New Democrats do. They try to divide and separate Canadians. People who are running businesses and making extra money could hire another person to go to work. That is why the NDP continues to fail and is becoming more and more irrelevant across Canada. The party should just stand for “no damn point anymore”.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise in this House to speak to important issues. We are speaking about climate change and how to fight it, how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and how to strengthen our economy while improving our environment. That is a very important conversation for Canadians here in Ottawa and across this blessed country.

Before I begin my formal remarks, today the International Energy Agency released its report on the global renewable energy market. One of the comments it made was that the forecasted capacity of solar and wind is going to hit 4,500 gigawatts, which is the amount of power output today produced by China and the United States together. That is where the world is going.

Before I continue, it is my pleasure to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Milton, a wonderful riding just west of mine. He will take the floor after I am done.

This renewable energy market report by the IEA goes to show how much and how quickly the world is transitioning to renewable energy sources. We must put that in context, because what we are discussing here today is very relevant to that. We are discussing a price on an externality that we want to reduce, as we say in economics, and it is very important that we continue to put in place policies for that. This is one policy that our government has put in place among a plethora of policies, whether it is tax credits for carbon sequestration, clean fuel regulations or investing in the battery sector in the transition for the auto sector, something I am very familiar with.

There is a multitude of different pillars we have put in place that will strengthen our economy and lead to a healthier and cleaner environment. That is the future. That is where the world is going. The United States is going there. China is even going there. Europe is going there too. There will be 440 gigawatts of renewable power added in the world this coming year according to today's report.

I will now get to my formal remarks on today's opposition motion.

Madam Speaker, today I have the privilege of rising to address my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss this motion on carbon pollution pricing.

Pricing carbon pollution is one of the most effective ways to encourage the reduction of emissions and ensure the investment needed to decarbonize the economy. It allows industry, households and companies to choose the best method of lowering their emissions rather than leaving the decision up to the government.

Pricing carbon pollution is a pillar of Canada's plan for meeting its 2030 targets and reaching net zero by 2050. Effective and comparable pan-Canadian carbon pollution pricing is vital to meeting these targets.

We must meet the objectives of 2030 and then those through to 2050.

Pausing the pan-Canadian approach to carbon pollution pricing or changing it midstream would cause significant uncertainty, particularly for the industry and for carbon credit markets. It would also curb much-needed investments in clean technologies such as carbon capture, use and sequestration.

The impact that carbon pollution pricing has on the cost of energy can be mitigated by returning revenues to households and businesses and using other types of federal funds and programs.

This is the approach our government has taken. It is returning 90% of the proceeds from the federal fuel charge to Canadians in provinces where it applies and where governments have not proposed their own plans that meet the federal model requirements.

In the Atlantic provinces, where heating oil will be subject to carbon pollution pricing for the first time next winter, most households in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island that will pay the federal fuel charge will receive more in climate action incentive payments than they will pay for the increased costs associated with the federal fuel charge. For example, a family of four in Newfoundland and Labrador will receive a $328 rebate every four months in 2023 before they incur expenses as a result of the increased federal fuel charge.

Our government is well aware of that increase. That is why we made sure from the start that all families that have to pay the federal fuel charge will have the money to do so or to modernize their appliances that use fossil fuels. When they get their quarterly climate action incentive payments, Canadian households can use that money however they want. For example, households could use those payments to amortize the costs of carbon pollution pricing. That is one of the reasons why those payments are being sent to Canadians before they incur any expenses from the federal fuel charge. Other households may take measures to reduce their energy consumption and come out even further ahead, because they will continue to receive the same amount in climate action incentive payments while using less fossil fuels.

In addition to the climate action incentive payments, our government announced, in September 2022, half a billion dollars that will be made available to Canadian households to help them abandon costly home heating fuel, with a $250-million contribution to the low-carbon economy fund and with a $250-million investment by the oil to heat pump affordability program, a new component of the Canada greener homes initiative, overseen by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources.

Or government is also helping small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can also modernize their equipment and their operations in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of the federal fuel charge when it applies in their province or territory. For example, $2.5 million of federal fuel charge proceeds will be returned by my department through a new program targeting small and medium-sized enterprises in trade-exposed and emissions-intensive sectors in provinces where the charge already applied before 2023, namely Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.

Through a jointly developed process, our government has also committed to returning 1% of fuel charge proceeds collected in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to indigenous recipients in those provinces under programs co-developed with indigenous organizations.

Let me be clear. Our government has demonstrated time and again that a majority of Canadians, over 80%, who pay the federal fuel charge get more money back in climate action incentive payments than they pay in charges in a year, which leaves them better off financially.

In the provinces and territories that have created their own carbon pollution pricing systems, the governments of those provinces can use the proceeds of their own carbon pollution pricing as they see fit. For example, they can use them for climate action incentive payments, similar to the federal model, or to reduce taxes for their taxpayers, if they wish.

The motion also cites carbon pollution pricing as one of the causes of inflation in Canada.

That is simply not the case. For example—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member.

I am really sorry, but we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, in looking at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the cost of the biofuels measure, it is clear that these costs are quite high for households, particularly in provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The provinces with the largest oil and gas industries, and where people rely heavily on oil, are basically paying for this measure.

Is it not time we helped these provinces and their governments develop solutions so that, when there are new standards in the future, costs are lower for households? Is that not the solution? Should they not be developing options for transportation, in particular, which uses oil?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. It is very important.

For example, we put in place a goal to have a clean electricity system by 2035. We will need to work with those provinces that are not there yet. We will need to put in incentives to ensure they get there. We need to have a clean electrical grid, much like the province of Quebec does through hydroelectricity. Where that is not the case in other provinces, we need to create incentives and so forth for them to achieve those goals without penalizing the residents of those provinces.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the question I have for my colleague regards affordability. One thing we are hearing over and over again from Canadians is that they cannot afford another carbon tax. They cannot afford any more taxes as they try to just basically feed their families.

Would he not agree that it would be better, instead of doubling down on the carbon tax, which has not produced the desired results they were expecting, to look at other ways, such as what the U.S. and Australia have? Why would he insist on doubling tax on a carbon tax again when it is not working?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I chat with my hon. colleague from the Prairies quite frequently and consider him a very good friend.

If we look at the numbers that have come out here in Canada in where our emissions are going and, they are going down the right trajectory. We are making those key targeted investments. The great thing is that the private sector is making those wonderful targeted investments in assets across this country in renewable power.

I believe there was an announcement today of foreign direct investment by a Greek company to build the largest solar facility in the province of Alberta, which would provide electricity for over 200,000 homes. We see the province of Alberta leading in renewable investments and in investments where it is decarbonizing its great petrochemical sector, and its great oil and gas sector, which we know supports the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians throughout this country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, while we are talking about emissions reductions and decarbonization, I wanted to take this opportunity to ask about the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project, which was announced in the budget. No amounts were provided as to how much the government would invest to ensure the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project can proceed. Could the member please describe to the House what investments will be made so Nunavummiut can contribute to decarbonization as well?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, on what was in the budget, obviously pieces from the budget flow into the budget implementation act, no. 1, and then most likely in the fall.

I hope to see more investments by our government in renewable energy, much like we see on the report today from the IEA on the renewable energy marketing in the world, here in Canada. We need to continue that pace. We see it throughout the world. It has to happen in northern Canada as well because we know the cost of living in northern Canada and the use of such things as diesel needs to be replaced with clean energy sources so we can lower greenhouse gas emissions, which is a win for the environment, a win for the economy and a win for affordability for Canadians.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to discuss this Conservative opposition day motion. The Conservatives have been quite persistent on talking about the price on pollution, and I just want to point out, as we have many times, that they campaigned on a worse version of the price on pollution. They campaigned on a promise to have some sort of a bank account where people would get deposits. “The more you burn, the more you earn”, is how it was characterized by many. The idea was that we would be able to spend the money on things such as bikes and other non-emitting transport methodologies, or whatever, but they failed in that attempt to convince Canadians they had a real plan for the environment.

They have not proposed any real plan to fight climate change, and this is in the context of events in so many of their constituencies. It does not really matter who is representing a constituency, but right now Canada is experiencing some of the worst wildfires ever. That is a fact that is going to probably be worse in the future due to climate change. Climate change worsens these wildfires. It also makes them more frequent. The dryness in our environment following the winter is influenced by climate change, and it is something the Conservatives refuse to accept.

They refuse to accept that climate change is having an impact on our environment, and these forest fires, as well as severe weather events, continually have really devastating impacts on communities, as well as our economy, so I just want to spend a moment to thank firefighters across the country who are battling these blazes. They are holding them at bay, in many cases. They are saving people from these horrible wildfires, and I thank them for their hard work and their valiant efforts in providing that safety and doing what they can to put out these fires. Canadians might feel helpless, but on this side, we do not feel helpless. We are going to stand up to focus on fighting climate change in the ways we can, with good policies and with better plans for the future.

Notwithstanding that, on this Conservative opposition day motion, there is only one Conservative in the House of Commons who is interested—

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

I would like to remind the member that we do not mention presences or absences in the House.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would be remiss of me to go on at all, but it is great to know that they are attentive, at least.

Putting a price on pollution is both effective and an essential part of any serious response to the global climate change. That is why all parties in the House, all 338 members who were out knocking doors in the campaign in 2021, committed to a price on pollution in one way, shape or form. We all agreed at that time that climate change was worth fighting, and that there were monetary, economic instruments, such as cap and trade or carbon pricing, that actually do the job.

Back in 2018, Ontario had just that. The Province of Ontario used cap and trade. It was a very effective way of combatting climate change and ensuring that our emissions are not unfettered. I strongly believe that pollution should not be free. We pay for our garbage when the town or city comes to pick it up. We pay for sewage when we flush things down the toilet. We should also be accountable for what we put into the environment and into the atmosphere. The more we burn, contrary to what the Conservatives ran on in the last election, the more we do not earn.

The more we burn, the more accountable we should be. Accountability and personal responsibility is foundational to Conservative thinking. I am surprised they spent so much railing against something that Stephen Harper, Preston Manning and so many others have proposed as very good ways to ensure we are fighting climate change from an economic perspective.

We have seen carbon pollution pricing work all over the world. In Europe, emissions are declining across industries thanks to carbon pricing. It has been working in Canada as well. We have seen emissions come down thanks to our carbon price. We have also seen it work in British Columbia for over a decade.

I would also point out that the Liberals brought that forward in 2008, at a time when many members of the Conservative Party were in that caucus. They thought it was a good idea to price carbon back in 2008. Climate change is worse in 2023, so I do not know why they have changed their mind and are now proposing that we get rid of a price on pollution when it has been so effective in British Columbia and Quebec. In Quebec, of course, it is cap and trade, which is another effective way to do it.

However, the federal approach to pricing carbon pollution is designed with a focus on affordability. The goal is to reduce pollution, not to raise any government revenue. It does not do that. That is why we direct all proceeds from the federal system to remain in the province or the territory where it came from, and is used to keep life more affordable and to take climate action.

I actually have the PBO report open on my desk, on my laptop. I was looking at which quintiles, which groups of Canadians, might pay a little more as a result of carbon pricing. It is always the wealthiest Canadians that tend to pay a little more as a result of having an extra car or a larger car, having a larger home to heat or having a more carbon-intensive lifestyle. Perhaps they tend to travel more often on airplanes. None of those things are bad. It is not a bad thing to have a larger vehicle or a larger home, it just means that people are probably going to burn more fuel and would have to be more accountable.

I will say it again, accountability and personal responsibility are foundational to Conservative thinking. I think it is very strange that the Conservatives are railing against this.

Wherever federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families actually get more back through the climate action incentive payments than they face in increased costs.

I would also just mention that, in the Toronto Sun recently, there was an article in which the Parliamentary Budget Officer expressed quite a lot of dismay at the misuse and mischaracterization of the report. The Parliamentary Budget Officer does really important work. Perhaps I will read a quote about the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It says, “Yves Giroux said the report has to be put into context alongside the costs of all other climate policies, including doing nothing.”

The cost of doing nothing is actually the most expensive idea, and that is pretty much what the Conservatives have been proposing, asking us why we do not just do nothing, get rid of the price on pollution and do nothing, which is the way they would do it if they were in charge.

Canadians do not want us to do nothing on climate change. They want us to stand up and make sure that we are fighting climate change and demonstrating to the world that fighting climate change and growing our economy go hand in hand.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “I am concerned at times about looking at just one aspect of the report...looking at the big picture...is highly preferable”. Doing nothing would be extremely costly. He indicated that carbon pricing, as I said, is an effective way to lower emissions and that we should be looking at the full report, not just selecting little bits and pieces, and saying for the highest quintile, it is going to cost them money.

The wealthiest Canadians tend to drive the biggest cars. The Ford F-150, not the electric version, was the best-selling vehicle in Canada over the last couple of years. Canadians tend to drive larger vehicles for lots of reasons. That is not a sin, but there is a reason to be accountable. That is what I think people ought to understand. It is all about accountability and personal responsibility.

In 2023, quarterly climate action incentive payments for a family of four are $386 in Alberta, $264 in Manitoba, $244 in Ontario and $340 in Saskatchewan, so we multiply those by four. These payments also go to households in the Atlantic provinces, where a family of four will receive $328 in Newfoundland and Labrador, a little shy of $250 in Nova Scotia and $240 in Prince Edward Island. Families in rural and smaller communities are also eligible to receive a 10% increase. It is also worth pointing out that they are tax-free, and families can do whatever they would like with those funds.

Pricing carbon pollution, as well as returning the proceeds to Canadian families and businesses, is an effective and affordable way to combat climate change while supporting the sustainability of Canadian communities. By returning those proceeds from federal carbon pollution pricing to businesses and industries through decarbonization projects and clean technologies, the Government of Canada is also stimulating that green step forward towards innovation and a green and clean future through business. That includes over $2.5 billion to small- and medium-sized businesses through those types of grants.

Canadians want to take advantage of the significant economic opportunities in the low-carbon economy, and that includes through clean fuels. Countries and businesses around the world are making a major shift to lower- and non-emitting fuels, and Canada is in a powerful position to be the producer of those fuels in the future. I am glad to see that we are taking steps in those types of innovations going forward. We expect those regulations will pay dividends, and the impacts are going to be positive on the overall ecosystem in Canada.

I want to close by once again thanking all the brave firefighters across the country, who are doing really hard and extraordinary work. They are risking their lives for Canadians, as they save them and protect homes from the destruction and danger of these horrible wildfires in so many provinces and territories across our country.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I want to extend my appreciation to all the hard-working firefighters and folks who are out there in harm's way, protecting themselves.

I appreciate the member's comments. He said that families in Saskatchewan are getting roughly $1,360 back a year. However, they are paying out $2,840 every year, so where is the difference going? He talks about this being revenue-neutral; if it is, then why are they not getting back the full $2,840? There is roughly around $1,480 that is coming out of Saskatchewan and going somewhere else. Can he tell me where that is going?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague opposite is doing exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer expressed dismay about in an article in the Toronto Sun just recently. My colleague can look it up. It is picking and choosing bits and pieces of the report and not seeing the big picture.

The point is this: There are costs to doing nothing, and there are costs associated with every type of regulation or procedure we put in place in order to combat these types of things. The cost of doing nothing is extraordinary. We would see far more impacts of climate change across this country, and that is what we would like to try to avoid.

I would also like to say that we need to be an example for countries around the world, to demonstrate that, if we build up a clean and green economy, we are protecting the environment and the economy at the same time.

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

Madam Speaker, in the House we often hear the Conservatives argue against carbon pollution pricing by saying that the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions is proof it does not work. I have explained to my Conservative colleagues on several occasions, in the lobbies, that emissions could have risen even more if not for the carbon tax, but that does not seem to have worked.

I know that my colleague is a talented educator. He knows that I hold him in high regard because we have worked together in committee for a long time. I think that if he explained it in his own words, the message might get across.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question. I think my colleague from Mirabel and I are friends.

I think it is fair to say that the only questions worth discussing in this conversation are those of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Greens, because they also believe in climate change and in carbon pricing, and we have the same goal.

I recognize that Quebec is way ahead of the rest of Canada. However, facts are facts, and climate change is a reality. Canada does not have much time to catch up with Quebec.

We are on the right path.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Milton would agree with me that we cannot let motions like this one distract us from the real goal, which is acting on the climate crisis with the urgency it requires.

One way that the governing party is slowing us down in this effort, though, is by directly funding the oil and gas industry, which is the very industry most responsible for the crisis we are in. In last year's budget alone, we added $3 billion more in subsidies to that industry.

Could the member for Milton talk about what he can do to move the governing party away from subsidizing the oil and gas industry and toward investing in the real climate solutions we need?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Kitchener Centre's sentiment. I would just quote Jean Chrétien. He is so many people's favourite historical figure, although I do not call him a historical figure, because he is in good health. I hope he is having a good day.

Jean Chrétien is an incredible voice for Canadians.

He said that, when a person is in the House, if the Conservatives are saying they are being too socialist and the Greens and the NDP are saying that they are being too Conservative, they might just be getting it right. That is why I am a Liberal. I think there are great ideas on both the left and the right, and I appreciate the great ideas from my colleague from Kitchener.

One thing we can keep doing is listening to each other in the House. I agree that we should not let nasty distractions like this motion take away from the fact that we are in a climate emergency.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert.

The rising inflation costs, housing costs, grocery costs and the additional carbon tax are adding costs that have a direct effect on Canadians, especially in rural Canada. The first carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 41¢ a litre. The second carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 20¢ to a litre of gas. The combination of carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2 will mean that Canadians will pay an extra 61¢ a litre for gas. Making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch the Liberal Prime Minister is.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which people live. The House recognizes the failure of carbon tax 1 and calls on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax 2.

Not only are groceries more expensive in rural communities, but there is also a distance to essential services, such as medical treatment. For example, a resident of Creston would have to drive to Cranbrook for a medical appointment, for a 250-kilometre return trip. If a specialist were needed, that would be a drive of 850 kilometres to Kelowna. That is a lot of fuel, and we can add to the complexity a senior who is on a very limited budget. Living in a rural area also requires our food security to be delivered from Vancouver. With diesel trucks transporting the product on a 2,000-kilometre return trip, the new cost per litre skyrockets. Can we guess who pays for the fuel increase? It is the rural residents, many of whom are on limited budgets.

Let us start from the beginning of our food security. We can take farming as an example. The carbon tax increase will have a direct impact on the price of goods being produced. The higher the carbon tax, the higher the price of vegetables, for example. Of course, adding to the complexity and the price is a 30% reduction in fertilizer. The farmer produces 30% less profit, and the cost increases accordingly. For dairy farmers, the carbon tax to heat barns and drive all the farm machinery adds significantly to the price of the products. The price increase is then given to the store purchasing the products.

Let us talk about the stores. Our grocery stores receive the products from the trucks. They pay the farmers for the products, the trucks for the transportation and, just to add to the cost, the store has to pay for the heat to maintain the operation of the store, including, of course, the carbon tax that they pay directly. Lastly, consumers come by. We must remember that it is rural Canada. Many times, they have to drive several hundred kilometres, and they pay the price of the products. This includes the farm carbon tax increase, for example, for heating barns and running farm machinery; the transportation carbon tax increase, which is the distance between the urban distribution centres and the rural grocery stores; the grocery store carbon tax increase; and, of course, the carbon tax for the fuel for the person to get to the store. It is no wonder that rural Canadians are hurting so much with the carbon tax increases, with additional costs on top of inflation. Again, many seniors are on fixed incomes.

As an example, Mary in Creston had to decide to go to a grocery store to buy food or drive to a medical appointment 240 kilometres away, because she did not have enough money to do both. It is very sad. Mary asked me if it is all because she lives in rural Canada. Then there are Tara and Bill in Yahk, who drive their children to school and recreation events throughout the Kootenays; some of these events are in larger centres, such as Kelowna and Vancouver. The carbon tax increases have put an end to many of those trips, as they do not have the income to put fuel in their vehicle.

Many of the businesses in Cranbrook are trying to weather the carbon tax increases to barely stay open. Of course, there has been significant damage as a result of the opioid issue in Cranbrook, and the groups this affects are non-profit organizations and businesses that have always supported them. However, the carbon tax increases, along with inflation and the damage from criminal behaviour, are making it difficult for our small businesses. The donations to non-profits are getting smaller and smaller; in some cases, there are no donations.

Another challenge we face is in transit in rural and urban centres. In urban centres, there are trains, light rail transit, the SkyTrain, the TTC subway, the OC Transpo light rail transit, the Montreal Metro subway, extensive bus service, taxi and Uber-type personal transportation, and compact metro vehicles, even scooters, for point-to-point rentals.

I know, having lived in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver for many years, that transit is not only affordable but also convenient. From talking with my daughter, who lives in metro Vancouver, I know that many of her friends who are 30 to 40 years old do not own vehicles. In fact, they do not have a driver's licence, and, in many cases, have no plans to apply for one. When I talk with her friends, I hear that many have lived in metro urban centres all of their lives. Until I talked with them, they had not really understood why rural areas are so different. This is a real challenge. The way of life in rural Canada is a bit different than in our cities. In urban centres, we do not have bus service. We do not have light rail transit. We do not have sky trains and we do not have subways. In fact, in many remote areas, there is no taxi service. Again, it is really challenging for residents.

The answer for rural Canada is a vehicle: a gas car or a diesel truck, especially in adverse weather conditions, like travelling through the Kootenays. People are going through the Rocky Mountains, the Purcell Mountains, the Selkirk Mountains and the Monashee Mountains all in one day. The additional carbon tax will have the effect of residents not being able to attend medical appointments, or they will have to pay extra to try to get groceries delivered. Students will not be able to attend school events, or children will not be going to figure skating and hockey tournaments as a result of the carbon tax increase.

I am a bit disappointed and, actually, surprised. I have had no response from the government with respect to assistance in funding. I am working with a non-profit group on the feasibility of an electric train from Cranbook to Yahk, Creston, Procter, Nelson, Castlegar and Trail. It is a small, 24-passenger electric train to transport individuals, for example from Nelson to Cranbrook for medical appointments, because, many days, the highways close as a result of avalanches, and many residents are elderly. It would also transport tourists from the Cranbrook international airport throughout the Kootenays, and the Nelson-Castlegar corridor is extremely busy, with significant traffic increases. The end result would be to try to reduce the carbon footprint.

All I asked for from the federal government, four times, was enough funding to be able to make a comprehensive business case. The Kootenay Rail Service Society has completed some background research to support the electric train, with funding dedicated to helping reduce carbon footprint. It is a fantastic opportunity for the federal government to show leadership and provide funding to complete the business case. The safety benefits are significant.

Here is a really positive project to reduce our carbon footprint, with no support from the government, yet the government is spending billions of dollars on buying legal guns from legal gun owners and spending billions on getting a handle on our addictions and opioid crisis, which is truly an emergency. The 300% increase in opioid overdose deaths is truly evidence that we, as a government and elected officials, need to step up and provide solutions and not band-aids. The government spends billions on housing strategies, yet the price of housing has skyrocketed. Even after spending billions, there has been zero impact from those billions of dollars of spending in Kootenay—Columbia.

The carbon tax is having a devastating effect in rural Canada and on all Canadians. The proposed carbon tax increase will impose a significant cost on rural residents.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing the member talk about government investments dealing with the environment, when we get the Conservatives constantly voting against it. They have ridiculed, for example, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does invest in large projects. That is why it is there, and we have significant amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars, invested in things such as electric buses and so forth.

Has the member's group, or the group that he is referring to, approached the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Does the member have some sense of what the actual cost would be?

I am encouraged that we have a member of the Conservative Party who is actually talking about how the government can assist in electrifying our transportation industry.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have reached out, and the actual cost, surprisingly, is about $400,000 to $500,000. That is all the ask was, for doing the business case to show what the carbon footprint would look like after we got the train installed. It is a CPKC, formerly CP Railway, train, so we would have to work with CPKC of course. That is quite a distance, if members know the Kootenays. It needs to go from Cranbrook all the way to Nelson and farther on.

There has been a lot of work done by the Kootenay Rail Service Society. The members have been talking with different residents about how much support there would be, and there is support throughout the Kootenays to run with this electric train.

Maybe now that it is out here the member across the way can give me a hand in getting some funding forward so we can go forward with that. I would appreciate that.