Debates of Sept. 28th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

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

I would ask the hon. member for Mirabel to limit himself to speaking about comments, not people. If he could apologize, that would be appreciated.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I wanted to point out that she had misled the House. Having supported Jean Charest, she seems very uncomfortable with the Conservative philosophy, so I simply wanted know whether my colleague has checked to ensure that his colleague has a valid Conservative Party of Canada membership card.

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

I think this is a somewhat removed from government business, but I will turn the floor over to the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, I would ask the member to stick to the matters currently before the House and not to ask questions about matters that concern another chamber.

I have a question for my colleague. Does he support the carbon tax? Does he agree that it should be radically increased, as one of his colleagues suggested, which will make life more expensive for all Quebeckers?

Anyone who lives in the regions knows that they need a car to get around. When we see the price at the pump, whether federal, provincial or municipal, it is obvious that people who cannot afford to put gas in their cars also cannot afford to buy groceries. It is scandalous.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, do members know what the scandal is? The scandal is that Conservatives, day after day, stand up and talk about the harms of capitalism and all of the impacts on profits, but they are afraid to name it. Unlike the hon. member, I will not take Quebeckers for fools, because I know that when Quebeckers were listening to this particular speech, they knew it was about the greed of corporations. The insatiable profit coming from the big five oil and gas companies in 2022 was $38.3 billion, not to mention the obscene profit held by corporations related to food and food supply.

We can look at what they do, day in and day out, shilling for these corporations shamelessly. When will the hon. member have the courage to finally stand up against the big money interests on Bay Street and in the corporate elite, and the real perpetrators of inflation, which are the price gougers and these big oil and gas companies?

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

Madam Speaker, it is the greed of this costly coalition that has caused so much pain to so many Canadians. The revenue of the government, because of inflation, rose by 30%, supported by this party. That is why we think we should say no to a carbon tax and put much more money in the pockets of all Canadians right now.

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

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to meet with my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss and debate a motion moved by the Conservative Party for their opposition day. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with my Conservative colleagues on their proposals because it is an opportunity to understand their position, their priorities and their vision for Canada.

I am not usually one to get upset, but unfortunately, most of the proposals they have made over the past few years have made me sad because they are bad for Canada. Today, we are studying a motion on the carbon pricing. More specifically, the Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill to eliminate all carbon pricing to lower the price of gas, groceries and heating.

I will begin by explaining why the government put a price on carbon.

The threat posed by climate change is very real. It is not a problem that is only going to happen in the future. It is happening now. All of our regions felt it this summer when we had the worst wildfire season in the history of Canada. There has also been flooding across the country, particularly in my riding of Kings—Hants. What is more, the frequency and intensity of storms is definitely a challenge for all Canadians. It is a challenge for everyone. We are familiar with this reality.

The initiatives put in place by the government and all parliamentarians in the House are for our children and grandchildren. Of course, we also answered questions today about changes in practice and other initiatives because climate change is real. It is happening right now.

I want to highlight that there are 77 carbon pricing initiatives around the world. I have had the opportunity to go to the World Bank site, and people can actually look at where they exist in the world and what types of initiatives other countries, other jurisdictions, have taken on. It is not as though Canada is the only country in the world that has a price on carbon. There are many other countries that go that way.

The Conservatives like to draw attention to carbon pricing. Nowhere did the Government of Canada, on this side, ever suggest that carbon pricing alone is going to be a silver bullet mechanism to help solve climate change. In fact, it is one mechanism among many that this government has presented. However, as I have said and perhaps teased some of my Conservative colleagues opposite on, the idea of introducing a price signal into the market and letting the market respond accordingly is inherently a small-c conservative principle.

I asked the member for Calgary Forest Lawn about the fact that there are projects across this country from companies that are responding to the price signal and driving really important innovation. The Conservatives like to talk about the slogan “technology, not taxes”, and it is indeed a slogan because they have no evidence of how they are going to incentivize the private sector and our great Canadian companies to make innovations and drive transitional change. Billions of dollars in this country are premised on that, and not only do companies now understand that it is in their best interests to do this because it is where there are generational opportunities, but of course they want to get around the price signal.

The Conservatives stand here today and do not signal that they are willing to support any form of carbon pricing in this country. That is problematic because billions of dollars of investment in this country rest upon that. Indeed, I will not suggest that we have it perfect, and I will get into that in my remarks, but the Conservatives do not offer a compelling alternative whatsoever. They just simply oppose without putting forward any solutions of their own.

From a political perspective, I am curious about and interested in this motion, particularly the way it is worded. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are fighting. The Conservatives named the Bloc Québécois in the text of their motion. I think there must be some kind of argument going on between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Perhaps the alliance between the two parties has started to break down because of the Conservatives' actions. We will see, but that is what I think is happening right now.

I want to start with the clean fuel standard. I note this initiative just so that all my colleagues, Canadians watching at home and perhaps people here in the gallery can understand what it is. The clean fuel standard is an initiative to reduce the carbon intensity in the fuels that we use. There have been other initiatives throughout time that I would say are similar to it. For example, there were times that we moved on regulations to remove lead from the fuel we use in our cars. I believe that initiative was championed by the Mulroney government some years ago, back when the Conservatives were progressive and we had actual action on climate and environmental initiatives coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. However, indeed, it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I will continue to remind Canadians that there is a difference. My constituents remind me every day that there is a big difference between the predecessor party that someone like Scott Brison was elected to in 1997 and what the Conservative Party of Canada has become today.

This is the initiative: to decarbonize our fuels. We are essentially asking oil and gas refiners in Canada to do that. They can do so with a number of different initiatives. They can add biofuels into the content of their fuels. They can work with farmers. There are tremendous opportunities in the agriculture sector to do offsets through credits. They can work on putting out charging stations. They can put home heating pump programs in place to demonstrate that they are getting the carbon intensity of their fuel down. There are a ton of options.

I want to talk about the projects. The Conservatives often talk about the cost. Indeed, they have in the text of this motion “17 cents per litre”. The parliamentary budget office has said that perhaps in 10 to 12 years there will be a 17¢ cost. In Nova Scotia, that was three cents a litre this summer. Yes, the program is not designed to rebate, but the program also drives industrial action. For example, the Conservatives have not stepped up today and talked about Come By Chance, the sustainable aviation fuel facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 87 million dollars' worth of investment in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It matters. The Conservatives have not talked about the electrolyzer. I have to be honest: I do not know what that is, but Irving Oil knows that it matters to its clean energy future. It has invested $90 million in it as part of the hydrogen strategy.

I was out in Regina, Saskatchewan. Perhaps a Saskatchewan member of Parliament will engage with me on this. A big billion-dollar co-operative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help drive its initiatives, in part because of the clean fuel standard. However, the Conservatives never talk about that, and it is important to note it.

The Conservatives are concerned about the three cents a litre in Nova Scotia, and I do not want to sound dismissive; I know every penny matters right now. The affordability question is an important one. However, if the Conservatives want to highlight the three-cents-a-litre increase on gasoline in Nova Scotia as a result of the clean fuel standard, they also need to highlight the major industrial investments being made in the Atlantic region. Maybe, as I have done publicly, they could encourage the provinces to see that, while the program was not designed to rebate, provinces have more money in their treasuries as a result of these major industrial projects and could reduce the provincial gas tax to make sure that is taken care of. They could do that. These are some suggestions that I offer to my Conservative colleagues.

The text of the motion is inherently, and I better not use the word “misleading”, but I have problems with the contents and the way the motion is written. For example, on 17¢ litre, the Conservatives do not give any context to the reader at home about what that means. They talk about things such as quadrupling to 61¢, and they give no context.

It was tripling just a few months ago. We would hear Conservative members, like a flock of crows, saying, “triple, triple, triple”, and we heard that for months. I guess now they are going to have to say “quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple”. I do not know how it has changed, but it has changed. They play a little loose and fast with the facts.

Again, the question around affordability and the question about whether or not we can look at adjusting measures under the carbon price is fair game. I am there, and I am going to get to that in my speech, but it is the idea that somehow they just basically put this out that I have problems with it.

The member for Calgary Forest Lawn stood up in this House a few speeches ago and said that the carbon price applies to a tractor driving on a farm. That is fundamentally untrue. If the Conservatives want to suggest that the carbon price applies to grain drying and that it should be removed, then yes, that is factually correct. They can go there. I have stood here and voted for the bill that came forward, Bill C-234.

However, we have to keep the debate in some realm of fact. It is like we are in a post-truth era, when people get up to say anything. I know we can have different perspectives on this, and I know that there is a range of debate, but we have to keep this in the confines of what is actually real.

On that, as we have talked about the price of fuel, groceries and home heating, I have an article from the National Post. I know that the Conservatives read the National Post because, of course, it is a bit more conservative leaning. I think some of it is fair. I read it too. The article is from September 21, 2023, so not that long ago, and I would encourage all members of the House to read it. There was a question about how much the carbon price contributes to the things the Conservatives are talking about today. I will read from the article, which I am happy to table later if I get unanimous consent. It says that the Bank of Canada estimates that 0.15% of inflation is tied to carbon pricing. Yes, there is some impact, but what we do not talk about, of course, is that the money is being rebated back to households.

The article also says that the carbon price contributes to less than 1% of the cost of groceries. When we look at what the Conservatives are calling for, yes, every dollar matters, but when we talk about this being a mechanism to drive some of those industrial projects I talked about earlier, that is extremely important. In fact, Trevor Tombe, who is an economist from Alberta, cites that it is 30¢ on every $100 grocery bill.

This is an important question, but the Conservatives are essentially calling for a reduction of 30¢ on every $100 that is spent on groceries in this country. I think they should join us in other initiatives that really matter for being helpful support: child care, the Canada child benefit and supports for seniors. There are a lot of different initiatives that they can get on board with. I am not so convinced that this one alone would solve the question of affordability.

I have talked about carbon pricing as it relates to major industrial projects, and I think I have exhausted that one. However, I look forward to my hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame standing up. We will have a great debate on whether or not that matters to his province, and we will get that on the record.

I want to talk about the position of Atlantic MPs, because we Liberal Atlantic MPs are specifically noted in the text of the motion before us. I cannot speak for every one of my Atlantic Liberal colleagues, as that would be inappropriate, but I will speak as one Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament.

Unlike what the leader of the official opposition had to say in question period today, I am not against carbon pricing. I am calling on this government to have adjustments to its approach on the federal backstop.

Unlike my Conservative colleagues, who just want to burn it down and say, “No, this is terrible”, but offer no solutions, I am trying to be constructive in both my comments here in the House, anything I say publicly, and what I say to my constituents on the intent of the policy. I go back to climate change and the generational challenge that we have before us.

This government is trying to move in the right direction, and the intent is the right one, but I think there are a couple of things that need to be adjusted. I am happy to talk about them.

First of all, the definition of what qualifies as a rural community has to be re-examined. Right now, if one lives in a census metropolitan area versus if one is outside defines whether one is urban or rural. We know the country is a bit more nuanced than that. There is an opportunity to re-evaluate that. There are some communities that may be within a CMA but are inherently and objectively rural communities. I have said that before and will continue to say it.

The rural rebate provided for constituents outside of those CMAs could be examined and could be increased, and not because rural Canadians do not want to be a part of the fight on climate change. We have to make sure there is a difference between the lived realities in urban and rural areas.

On affordability of home heating, I want to note that this government put $118 million into Atlantic Canada in October. We have not heard one single mention of that from the Conservative benches. It is a program that makes a difference on energy efficiency, and it is a program that makes a difference on home heating oil usage. It is good for the environment, but particularly to the intent of this bill, it is really important for affordability. There was not one word mentioned on that.

There has to be more time for those programs to work out, and I made it very clear that I hope the government will consider exempting or otherwise indemnifying individuals until such time that the merits of that program to help people get transitioned off can be in place.

The last thing I would say is we need to continue to focus on the supply side with, for example, EV charging stations and maybe perhaps more of an emphasis on the heat pump program. I have talked to the member for Long Range Mountains, and I know in Newfoundland and Labrador there is some work that has to be done on electricity upgrades to ensure the heat pumps can actually function and we can move forward. However, this is all really good for focusing on affordability and also tackling the issue of climate change. That is my proposition, which is that it is not mutually exclusive. These things need to happen at the same time.

I want to go to Bill C-49. The Conservatives are going to roll their eyes because I have been at them over the last week, but I am still perplexed as to why the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in this country, is opposing a bill that is supported by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the clean energy sector, indigenous communities and business stakeholders. We are engaging with fisheries, and I say that because I can image the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is going to ask about the fisheries. They are extremely important stakeholders who deserve to be and are part of that conversation.

Everyone is on board, this is the way to enable it, yet Conservatives stand in opposition. They have something to answer to Atlantic Canadians on that question because they are standing against the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They talk about the technology, the future of renewable energy in Atlantic Canada, not taxes, but they will not even let the technology drive forward. It is so hypocritical.

I have really enjoyed engaging in this. I cannot wait for questions. I am going to move quickly so we can get as many members in as possible.

To conclude, carbon pricing is an initiative that is implemented around the world to help create a mechanism to drive change. This government is focused on investing on the supply side to help people make that change. We have made sure, in the way the program is designed, that money goes back disproportionately to households to help protect them.

I have talked about the statistics, and about how much carbon pricing, according to the Bank of Canada and according to economists in the National Post, a paper I hope the Conservatives read, is contributing very little to the overall things they are talking about here today.

I have explained my position on carbon pricing. I believe in the intent. I believe in the inherent nature of why we are doing this. However, I am calling for adjustments. I stand here proud, as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, recognizing that, for the constituents I represent, the national program needs to be adjusted to better reflect their reality. I am offering solutions. I look across the way, and I see very little in terms of solutions.

On a bill that represents billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada's economy, let us forget the fact that this represents an ability to decarbonize our electricity grid and perhaps provide power to my good friends over in Quebec through Atlantic Canada. This is about jobs, prosperity and great economic opportunities for communities. The Conservatives continue to stand against that.

I look forward to a member of Parliament from the Conservative caucus of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia getting up and going on the record here today and explaining to their constituents why they are standing in the way of billions of dollars of opportunities, and I think I am going to get that answer right now.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, the outgoing member for Kings—Hants, on November 28, 2022, to The Laker News, a local paper, said, “They are trying to play a bit of boogeyman on the federal government in relation to carbon [tax] pricing right now.” That is what he said about Premier Houston's party in Nova Scotia. Fast-forward to September 15. The CBC headline reads, “Atlantic Liberal MPs press [the Prime Minister] for rural carbon tax carve-out.”

What is it going to be? Is it going to be support for his constituents by voting for our motion, or is he going to be with the boogeyman?

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

Madam Speaker, after I am done answering this, I am going to walk some Q-tips over to the hon. member and see whether he was able to listen to the 20-minute speech in which I provided very clear answers to where I stand on this policy.

I actually had a conversation with Premier Houston in May 2022 to say that I would hope that the provincial government would implement its own made-in-Nova Scotia carbon pricing plan. The Conservatives stand against that. I believe in the intent of the policy, but there needs to be some serious adjustments. I am on record in the House. The member can look at the record afterward, and he can read it so he can understand where I stand. I have been very clear.

However, where is the member as it relates to Bill C-49 and the great opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador? He will have to answer to the good people of his riding on that one.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech. It is nice to hear a well-articulated speech that is based on facts.

I have a very specific question to ask that he will certainly have no problem answering. Could he inform the House of Commons about the clean fuel regulations that were adopted by his government on July 1 and tell us when the government asked for the Bloc Québécois's support on this? When was there a vote in the House on this? Was there one?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not really know, as I am not responsible for drafting opposition motions. As I said, there are many issues with this Conservative motion. I do not know the answer.

I do, however, want to raise an important question regarding Bill C‑49. The aim of this bill is to create an opportunity for offshore wind farming in the Atlantic. We know that Hydro-Québec has concerns regarding a shortage of electricity and clean energy in Quebec. Members from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have a great opportunity to work together to ensure a very clean and very green energy supply for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

I am very happy to work collaboratively with my colleague.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I said this earlier today, as I have been in this chamber all day today, and I think that the motion that has been put forward is frankly a fundraising opportunity for the Conservatives. They are not treating this seriously. They are not interested in engaging seriously in debate on how to make this program work for Canadians and how to actually meaningfully address climate change. Therefore, I am going to ask the member about his speech and about how we could fix a carbon program.

In my province of Alberta, Rachel Notley brought in the very first one, the carbon levy, and it was highly successful. One of the things that it did was actually contribute to reducing our carbon footprint by including things such as billions of dollars in investment into transport and billions of dollars in rebates so that folks could put solar panels on their homes and retrofit our homes. There was millions of dollars that went to developing bio-energy and millions of dollars that went for methane reduction.

I wonder whether the member would be interested in looking at a carbon levy or a carbon tax that would be used to reduce our carbon footprint and meaningfully deal with the climate emergency.

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

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. What I heard from my hon. colleague is that she understands the importance of a price signal and the importance of carbon pricing and recognizing that, whether in her home province of Alberta or one of the other 76 jurisdictions around the world, this is seen as a really important way to be able to support the fight on climate change.

I agree with the member's comments that we have to construe this policy in a way that is fair and equitable to all parts of the country. As I said in my remarks here today, I would like to see a higher rural rebate. I would like to see some thought given around the home heating question in Atlantic Canada, where 40% of our households still rely on home heating. The government has put really good programs in place. There is the $118 million that I mentioned, which would be very similar to the transit piece that the member mentioned in Alberta. However, those programs need time to get out, and we have to balance the affordability question versus environment. They go hand in hand, so I think of any of these.

I would really welcome a mature and responsible debate instead of some of the mudslinging I see. To be fair, there are some Conservative members on the other side who stand up to provide credible positions, but far too much that I have heard in this debate today is just information that is not factually correct. We have to be better as parliamentarians.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, we have cited a few headlines, and here is one that came out four hours ago in the National Post: “Most Canadians want carbon tax reduced or killed: poll”. The articles says, and this is astonishing, “While Alberta typically charts as the most anti-carbon tax jurisdiction in Canada, this time it was Atlantic Canada”, where 50 per cent of respondents want the carbon tax completely eliminated.

The hon. member talked about three cents. In my province of New Brunswick, carbon tax 2 was eight cents plus HST, but we are dealing with numbers that people do not see. Between my province of New Brunswick and Maine, the carbon tax shows just how big the gap in gas prices is. Pump prices in the state of Maine are 50¢ per litre less than they are in New Brunswick. That is all taxes.

My question, member, is this: How can you say Conservatives are not representing Atlantic Canada when you are the one punishing them with these taxes? You oppose the isthmus deal—

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

I would remind the hon. member that I am not punishing anybody. I would ask the member to speak through the Chair.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder how Atlantic Canadian Liberals can say they are the ones standing with their voters, when they are the ones punishing them with the carbon tax, which is going to go up another 62¢ between now and 2030; when they have targeted law-abiding firearms owners; when they are not supporting the premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia on funding for the isthmus; and, of course, when they are the ones continuing to vote for higher carbon taxes. I would ask the member to answer that, please.

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

Madam Speaker, I had to take out a pen because there were about 16 interventions in that question. I hope I will get time to answer.

On the isthmus, we are there with 50%. As I said on Radio-Canada this week, if the courts indeed determine that this is a purely federal responsibility, we will be there with 100% of the cost.

I stand here asking for adjustments to the carbon price. The member opposite suggests that carbon pricing should not exist in Canada, contrary to the fact that 77 jurisdictions around the world point to this as being an effective policy. Beyond that, the Conservatives have provided no credible plan on how they are going to challenge and address the issue before us. Therefore, the member has some explaining to do as well.

On Bill C-49, so that when the member clips this and sends it home to his constituents, this is a generational opportunity for Atlantic Canada for offshore wind. The premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador want it. The member stands against it. He needs to go home and explain why he is standing in the way of billions of dollars of generational opportunity, especially when the line from the Conservatives is “technology, not taxes”.

Last, with respect to the 50-cent difference between Maine and New Brunswick, if he goes to Maine, I am sure he will find that there is a 50-cent difference between the price of milk in Maine and in New Brunswick. There are a lot of price differentials. He is tying this exactly to what we are talking about today, which is not necessarily a true reflection of the fact that there is a price differential between Canada and the U.S. on a number of products. Maybe he is saying that he does not want to support the dairy farmers in New Brunswick and across this country and that he wants to get rid of supply management, which we have seen from the Conservative Party. It has not been strong on that policy that matters for rural Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Lakeland.

It is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of my constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha and of all Canadians. I am the shadow minister for families, children and social development, and I have been pretty vocal in my cry of the mental health crisis across this country, in particular for our kids. They are not doing okay.

Today, what we are going to talk about in the House directly impacts our children. Today is an opposition motion day put forth by our leader, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. An opposition motion has been put forth by us. We are the official opposition; we are not in government. We do not get to set the agenda and we do not get to set policy. We are here as opposing members to bring balance to the government. The problem is that we do not have just the Liberals in power; we have an NDP-Liberal coalition that signed a deal that is deeply hurting Canadians.

The opposition motion that was put forward today and that we are debating in the House is that “the House call on the government to introduce legislation, within seven days of this motion being adopted, to repeal all carbon taxes to bring home lower prices on gas, groceries, and home heating”. My Conservative colleagues can applaud for that. It is a very important piece of legislation and will give members an idea, when the vote happens, where the members of the House stand.

The reality is that there are very real consequences to decisions and policies made in the House, and there are very real consequences to taxing fuel, which is what the carbon tax is doing. When we tax fuel that a farmer needs to run his tractors on his field or to take care of his animals, we are then going to have to transfer that tax to the trucker, who is going to have move that food. We are then going to have to tax the manufacturer of the food. Members can guess who ends up paying that compounded price. It is Canadians, the people at home watching this. What happens to their hard-earned paycheque? It falls out of their hand like sand.

I asked last night, through my social media channels, to hear from my constituents, because that is what we are elected to do in the House. We are elected to listen to and be the voice of our ridings. There are about 115,000 people in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. We are a bellwether riding, which means we are reflective of the entire country. We are a bit of a microcosm of what happens in Canada. I asked people to share their stories with me of how the carbon tax is impacting their lives, and I asked if I could read those into the record, so that is what I am going to do right now.

I am going to start with Shannon Montgomery Sundberg, who writes that she does not even know where to start. She is a business owner and needs fuel for everything. She needs truck parts, plow parts, machinery, oils and insurance. Her customers are not able to pay what they owe, because their own families are struggling. Shannon says that she cannot afford to hire extra help; there is not enough work to keep the business going. The lack of income is starting to affect her mental health, for which, she says, there is no help.

Shannon writes, “It is so much more than carbon tax. It is a whole broken system. Ontarians are being forced out.” They feel that the government does not want them, and that it “should be helping its people, not stomping on them while they are down.” She says divisions created by the government make her cry almost daily. Everywhere she looks, she sees people in difficulty. As a mother of four grown children, who have spouses and children of their own, Shannon says that she worries every day about the cost of healthy food. She asks, “Can you imagine as a mother not being able to offer good healthy food to your kids and their kids because you are trying to hold on yourself?”

Shannon calls herself “a very proud Canadian”, but she nonetheless has a “disgusting feeling” towards the whole government. She writes, “Every single person under our Prime Minister has had every opportunity to walk away and/or speak up. We the people voted the Government in and we the people should be able to say enough is enough. We want a Government for the people.”

Chad writes, “We live in a rural part of Ontario. With the current fuel prices, to fill my truck and SUV for my wife and I for one week is about $325. We spent $500 last week on groceries as we have a family of 5; [that is] $825 in one week for groceries and fuel.”

Carol Anne Grant writes that their power bill for one month is now $400. With the cost of heating their home, she says, their whole pension goes to paying household bills, with nothing left for groceries. Stats from Food Bank Canada say that seven million people are not able to feed themselves and that 1.5 million people a month are using food banks. These are people with jobs. That is what is happening across our country.

This next message comes from Jeff Dunk, who writes that he works for a trucking company and that there are drivers sitting at home. There is not enough work because people do not want to pay the current rates for transportation.

Erica's message is pretty profound, as all of them are. Erica writes, “My husband and myself work decent paying jobs (combined over $100,000) and we have two kids. We rent our two bedroom home and have two vehicles. I run out of money two days after pay day.” One of their children is diabetic. She says, “the cost of groceries is ridiculous. I am spending about $400 every two weeks to feed my kids.” That means that the hydro bill is not getting paid, or sometimes they pay just enough to keep the lights on. Sometimes the heating gas bill is not getting paid.

Erica goes on to ask, “How is it that a family making over $100,000 a year can't be comfortable? We are just as broke as we were when we were barely making $50,000 a year combined.” She has worked hard and finally has a wage she always dreamed of, yet she says, “I am getting nowhere. I am stuck in the small rental because I can't afford the rent for anywhere else. I am penny pinching for two weeks to make it to next pay day. I am tired. I feel defeated. It is no wonder mental health has become a crisis. Trudeau is to blame for that.”

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

We have to use titles and not the names of members.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the reality across the country. Because parents are not okay and are so busy worrying about paying for food, heat, hydro and groceries, their kids are less engaged. They do not get the attention they need. They feel disconnected. We know this.

We can look at the Children First study that came out in August. This is an incredible organization that does studies. This is what is happening to children in our country. Food insecurity in children is up 29%. Canada ranks 30th out of 38 in the OECD for child well-being. Canada ranks 81st out of 193 countries on the global KidsRights Index, which is down from 48th in 2022. Listen to this one: Suicide is a leading cause of death in children. Yes, this is linked to the carbon tax because the most compassionate thing someone can do as a leader is make life affordable. That is what we need in this country.

Jennifer wrote to me and said that she and her family have lived comfortably on a budget so she could stay home with their kids. The cost of child care was way too high. Jennifer's husband works the night shift at a logistics warehouse of a major grocery corporation. As long as he has worked there, there has never been such a slowdown, especially considering it is the week before Thanksgiving. They are cramming more orders onto fewer trucks. Because stores are selling less, orders are smaller and less frequent, and production is down to a third of the usual. Jennifer writes, “Hero workers who worked their asses off during Covid are now getting slapped in the face right before Christmas with layoffs and jobs lost; that is what the carbon tax has done to my family.”

Donna is a senior from my community. She called me this summer and asked me if I would stand in the House of Commons and ask the Prime Minister a question. She wanted to know if he could live on $1,300 a month, because that is what she is doing.

I have travelled this country. I have listened to the frontline workers who have severe burnout because they, too, are struggling with the cost of living. If the people who are on the front lines of our health care, our social services and our education system are not okay, and if our parents are not okay because they are lying in bed at night wondering if they are going to be able to keep their house, then our kids are not okay.

The most compassionate thing we can do today is approve this motion, get rid of the carbon tax and care for the Canadians who are suffering.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, the last time I heard my hon. colleague speak, it was during the debate on child care. We were trying to put in place a child care framework, to ensure that affordable child care would be available across the country.

My hon. colleague mentioned how unaffordable child care was for one of her constituents, and so I would like to hear from her: Why did she spend all that time during that debate arguing against affordable child care?

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

Madam Speaker, everything I said in that debate is true, because 50% of the people eligible for the Liberals' child care that is going to save the world cannot even access it. That is what we are reading into the record.

For her record, we absolutely voted in favour of it. However, the reality is that it is not working. If she does a Google search today, she will see local child care centres across this country shutting down, because the program is doing exactly what we said. It is not rolling out correctly, and people cannot access it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me read point (a) of the Conservatives' motion:

(a) the Bloc Québécois supported the so-called “Clean Fuel Standard”...

I have only one question. Maybe you can enlighten me, Madam Speaker, since you know so much about parliamentary procedure.

How is it possible to support a standard?

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

Madam Speaker, it sounded as though the member was asking the Speaker that question.

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

The hon. member was being a bit facetious, but the question was to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.