Debates of Sept. 28th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition leader for his excellent speech.

Our Bloc Québécois friends may be having fun, but Quebeckers are realizing that they would perhaps do well to listen to what the Conservative Party is proposing. I would remind my colleagues that, this morning in Quebec City, in the Bloc riding of Beauport—Limoilou, there was a long lineup at Bouchée généreuse, a food bank. A journalist came by and recorded a video. He said that he could not get over the fact that in Quebec City there are so many people lining up to get help in order to eat.

I would also remind my friends in the Bloc Québécois and in the Liberal Party that according to this week's news, Quebeckers have been the hardest hit by inflation. In Quebec, inflation has gone up by 14.9% since February 2021, while the average pay has risen by only 9.8%. This suggests that we have collectively gotten that much poorer.

Also this morning, an article in the Journal de Montréal and the Journal de Québec reported that Quebeckers have slipped into financial insecurity. According to a poll, 65% of young people say that they are unable to pay all their bills without going further into debt. The reality of inflation has caught up with young people: 51% are living paycheque to paycheque and life's simple pleasures are out of reach.

We are not making this up. It is the reality. It is the reality of Canadians and, particularly, Quebeckers. In Quebec, we have been saying for months that things are not so bad, but now we are the province where things are only getting worse.

May I have some respect in the House?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind members who want to have conversations that they can go outside to the lobby.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the carbon tax, our Bloc Québécois friends like to say that it does not apply in Quebec. They need to understand that the federal carbon tax, which does apply to provinces other than Quebec, has a direct impact on consumption in Quebec.

We only have to think of the Alberta farmer who is taxed to grow the food, the trucker who transports it and has to pay a tax, the store that sells the food and the family who buys it. It is a chain. At the end of that chain, the taxes that have been imposed on producers elsewhere in Canada, including the carbon tax, have a direct impact on consumer prices for Quebeckers.

This tax was created by the Liberal Party, which decided it was the best thing in the world. They insisted on it and imposed it on Canadians, and the Bloc Québécois unfortunately supported that. It is easy enough for the Bloc Québécois to say that Quebeckers have their own tax, the carbon exchange, and that the carbon tax does not impact them. However, as I just said, there is a direct—not indirect—impact on consumer products in Quebec.

What we are doing today is not complicated. We are asking the government to give Quebeckers and Canadians some breathing room, to give them a break. The ending of our motion is straightforward. It asks 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.”

We are actually not attacking the Bloc Québécois. We are asking the Bloc Québécois to show some sense, to understand that people are suffering and that it is expensive. The articles that I read at the start of my speech were not pulled out of thin air, nor were they made up by the Conservative Party. They are reporting facts, things that are happening right now. The Bloc members here in Ottawa, in what they like to call their foreign Parliament, do not understand that reality is different for ordinary people. As I said, there are people in Beauport—Limoilou who are lining up this morning to be able to eat. That is the reality.

I am asking the Bloc Québécois members to think logically. Can they understand that we need to find ways to bring down consumer prices and make it possible for people to keep more of their money? There is already so much taken from their pay in taxes and, on top of that, all consumer goods are getting more expensive. The cost increase is appalling. By eliminating taxes, we will be able to lend a hand to the industry by making things easier for consumers.

I will not blame all 32 Bloc Québécois members. I have spoken with some of them, so I know that there are some who can reason, who think logically, who understand. However, there are others who come into the House and just throw words around. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said, “Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far.”

This means that, even though it costs a lot, he believes it is still not enough. His party wants to increase the tax even though it will cost even more. It does not matter if the price of carrots doubles. They do not care. They just want to increase the tax. This is the request from one Bloc Québécois member. We want to know whether the 31 other Bloc members and the leader of the Bloc Québécois agree with this request. Does the leader of the Bloc agree that we should increase a tax that is already too high and that should not exist in the first place? It is not clear, because we have never heard the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert's colleagues tell him to calm down or say that he is going too far, that he needs to stop and that people are already paying enough. No, they seem to think that what he is saying makes sense.

Let me clarify something that the Bloc members do not seem to understand. The motion also explains that the Bloc Québécois supported the creation of a second carbon tax, which does apply to Quebec. I am referring to the infamous clean fuel regulations.

We know that there was no vote on this. These regulations were put in place by the government, so there was no vote. However, in June, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion that specifically called for the cancellation of the carbon tax and the regulations. What did the Bloc Québécois do? It voted against the motion.

As a result, this regulation has been in force since July 1, so now there is a tax, applied through the regulations, that will make gas more expensive. The Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated this in a report that I am not allowed to show to the House, but I have it here. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrates that Quebeckers, yes, Quebeckers, will be taxed directly under these regulations.

The Bloc Québécois will say that it is not a tax, it is regulations, but that is just semantics. When people pay, when they take out their credit card to pay for gas, it is a tax. For us, it is a tax. For the public, it is a tax. No matter what it is called, the fact remains that when regulations are in effect and make people pay, it is a tax.

Environment and Climate Change Canada has come up with estimates for all this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report states:

Relative to household disposable income, PBO results show that the Clean Fuel Regulations are broadly regressive. That is, the cost to lower income households represents a larger share of their disposable income compared to higher income households.

Environment and Climate Change Canada even estimates that the clean fuel regulations will increase the price of gasoline and diesel in 2030, the year in which the regulations reach full stringency, and will reduce Canada's real GDP by up to 0.3%, or $9 billion, in 2030.

While the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois always claim that they listen to the experts, they obviously have selective hearing because some experts are pointing out problems. Most importantly, they are not listening to Canadians, or to Quebeckers in the Bloc Québécois's case. If anyone is wondering why people are starting to ask questions, I just gave the answer.

Sometimes, the Bloc Québécois can do good things. In its election platform, there is one good thing. The first point is obviously not so good because it is about achieving independence. That will not be achieved here, but in Quebec City. I invite the Bloc members to run for provincial office so they can try to achieve independence there.

Anyway, back to Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois states in its platform that it must be able to change. That is written in black and white. For the past two weeks, their new messaging has been that they are responsible people, that they are the adults in the House, even though they are yelling behind me. They say they can change.

I must admit that they showed they could change. To counter the effects of the legislation created by Bill C-5, which allows criminals to serve their sentences at home, I introduced Bill C-325. The Bloc Québécois said they would support me because a mistake had indeed been made. The Bloc admitted that it was a problem. Everybody makes mistakes, and the Bloc members acknowledged that they were wrong.

Today, we are asking them to do the same for these taxes, which have a direct impact on the economy for Canadians and Quebeckers. We are asking the Bloc to support the Conservative Party and acknowledge that the government may have gone too far. Enough with all these taxes. They are not having the desired results. We can clearly see that some results are not coming through at all in the fight against climate change. There are other solutions, other approaches.

I would invite the Bloc members to listen to the speech that the Conservative leader gave in Quebec City. He clearly listed our strategies with respect to the environment. There are ways to help the environment, but taxing and suffocating people is not the solution.

I therefore ask that the Bloc Québécois support our motion and convince the Liberals to do likewise. We would also like them to convince the NDP, but that is another matter. The most important thing is to convince the Liberals to change tack and adopt our motion.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it looks to me like my colleague is trying to pick a fight with the Bloc Québécois today, but I will nonetheless ask him a question.

When my colleague ran for election, he pledged to put a price on carbon. Given that Quebec has succeeded in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, as a proud Quebecker, does he not support his province and the environmental plans on which he campaigned? Does he not benefit from them?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I support first and foremost is the people who are hungry.

People are lining up every morning in Beauport—Limoilou to get something to eat because they cannot afford to buy food at the grocery store. They have a hard time getting to work because they cannot afford to put gas in their car.

It is these people that I support. The top priorities in life are food, transportation and shelter. The situation is dire in Quebec in that regard, and it keeps getting worse.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, listening to my Conservatives friends this morning, one would think the Bloc Québécois is the party in power in this country. It is unbelievable.

My colleague mentioned that he is concerned about people who are hungry right now. It is funny, because two weeks ago I was in Quebec City, the only part of Quebec where the Conservatives have elected members. There was a conference on homelessness where every party that has members in the province was represented. The Liberals were there, but strangely enough, the Conservatives were nowhere to be seen. One might well ask why not a single Conservative showed up.

I have a question regarding the infamous energy bill that the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis waved around in the House.

Does my colleague understand that it had nothing to do with the carbon tax and everything to do with the Quebec-California carbon market? What that member said in the House was a bald-faced lie.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, a question from the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is a dream come true. He himself is calling for the tax to be radically increased.

When he was gallivanting around Quebec City during the homelessness summit, did he tell the people there that he asked Ottawa to raise taxes so things would cost even more, so there would be even more homeless people because folks do not have enough money to buy food? Is that what he told people in Quebec City while he was there tooting his own horn? Sooner or later, people need to be reasonable and stop talking nonsense.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe my Conservative colleague's speech. What planet is he on? We have only one planet, and we are destroying it with the kind of pro-oil and pro-pollution ideology he is advocating for today.

The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5°C, as long as all states respect their commitments. At this point, 2.4°C of warming looks likely. That means there will be natural disasters and forest fires like the ones we had this summer. People's health will be impacted; people will die because of climate chaos.

If my colleague cares so much about people, why is he not doing everything he can to save the planet?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy hearing the NDP member shout himself hoarse like that. I would remind him that he lives in downtown Montreal. All he has to do is walk five minutes in one direction and then five minutes in the other and he has covered his entire riding.

We live in rural ridings, and people need to get around. They live far from urban centres. They need cars to get around. They cannot just go from one subway stop to another like my colleague from Montreal. He lives in a completely different reality than most Quebeckers who do not live on the Island of Montreal or in downtown Montreal. He is living in his own bubble, his own reality.

I understand what he is saying, but my colleagues and I live in rural areas. If people do not have a vehicle or the price of gas is unaffordable, then they cannot get around. They cannot even get to the grocery store to buy food, which has also become too expensive.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, my co-parliamentary secretary for environment and climate change, as well as natural resources.

The opposition is once again tabling a motion that it claims would help Canadians with household costs, but in actuality, it seeks to weaken our efforts on fighting climate change. I will take a few minutes now to explain why action on climate change is so essential, why carbon pollution pricing and clean fuel regulations are core to that action and how we have been able to act while protecting Canadians against affordability impacts.

This summer, as every member of the House knows, Canadians faced devastating wildfires across the country. We saw entire communities evacuated through the flames, and we now face costs to rebuild in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Scientists confirm, and Canadians understand, that these historic wildfires were made much more likely and far more intense because of climate change and that we will continue to face even more severe natural disasters in the future if we do not take serious action now and demonstrate leadership to reduce the carbon pollution that causes climate change.

I will quote a recent article from the Financial Post that leans in on the issue of how serious governments need to have more than one ambition and more than one commitment:

[Carbon pricing] puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions [and it] is often accused of exacerbating rising food costs. This is a mistake. Addressing both food insecurity and climate change must be national priorities and to suggest that we can [improve] affordability if we sacrifice the environment is a dangerous error.

That article and many others go on to explain how climate change is actually far more responsible for rising food costs than is a price on pollution, which is actually one of the solutions to fighting climate change and the intense weather we are experiencing.

Our government understands the urgency of addressing climate change. We know that we need to act now and to act seriously. That is why, since 2016, our government has put in place a comprehensive suite of measures that help Canadians reduce carbon pollution and accelerate the adoption of new clean technologies. Canadians have asked us to take action, and we have delivered.

In fact, in the last election, every single member of this House ran on a commitment to price pollution and to price carbon. Erin O'Toole, as the leader of the Conservatives, ran on a commitment to have a carbon price. This means that every voter in Canada voted for some type of carbon pricing mechanism.

At the heart of this action is an economic tool that economists and experts around the world recognize as one of the lowest-cost and most flexible options to address climate change. That is putting a price on carbon pollution. Economists and serious stewards of the economy know that markets are a powerful tool. They can create prosperities for innovation and solve problems by harnessing the decision-making power and knowledge of millions of households and businesses across the country.

Pricing carbon is a market-based instrument. It is actually at the core of Conservative thinking. Conservative governments across the world believe in these market-based instruments and using markets to influence such things as how much pollution a society can create. This is an example of a Conservative Party that is lost in space. It does not believe in climate change, and it does not believe in the simple math around fighting climate change with a market-based instrument such as a carbon price, despite the fact that all its members ran on one.

I would not be surprised if Conservative members did not even believe in gravity. Climate change is right in front of them. It is absurd to look at that in the face, particularly in the wake of the worst wildfire season our country has ever experienced, and deny its existence entirely.

Markets fight climate change, in large part, by using price signals. Any rare, expensive or desirable good has a higher price, and this spurs new businesses to enter markets, innovate and provide more of these goods and services to find lower-cost ways of delivering them. Putting a price on carbon works the exact same way. It sends a signal that polluting costs us all, encourages the market to create cleaner alternatives and encourages households and businesses to adopt these alternatives and pollute less.

We all pay when we flush the toilet in our homes. When we put our garbage out to get picked up on garbage day, we pay through our property taxes. What comes out of our tailpipes and the emissions created by heating our homes also have costs, and it is important to recognize that those costs actually have a value.

Provinces such as Quebec and British Columbia have been doing this for a long time. I know a lot of Quebec members have stood up and talked about carbon pricing. They have been benefiting from it, as Ontarians did until 2018, when Doug Ford cancelled cap and trade in Ontario.

This is Economics 101, and the opposition should know better than to claim it does not work. They ran on a similar plan. If they were serious about addressing climate change, then they would know that real action requires significant investments and a carbon pollution price will encourage the most efficient and lowest-cost investments possible. Their constant demands to eliminate the price on carbon suggest that they do not understand how the economy works, they do not believe in serious action on climate change, or both. It could also be that they just need something for bumper stickers and T-shirts. I think that is probably the case.

Let me now turn to affordability, which is top of mind for all of us these days. Canadians are facing higher prices because of rapid inflation, which has been driven by pandemic supply chain disruptions, the war in Ukraine and high housing costs because of long-standing shortages. I could stand for 20 minutes and talk about what we need to do in order to address housing costs, but today, we are talking about climate action. We know that governments across the world that take it seriously are taking action.

Our government is focused on an affordability plan across our mandate. Our $8.9-billion plan put in place multiple measures to make life more affordable: enhancing the Canada worker benefit, ensuring affordable child care and dental care, increasing the old age security pension and topping up the Canada housing benefit. This is just to name a few things that the Conservatives consistently voted against. We have continued to work to address the issues that cause affordability impacts by taking action this summer; for example, he have worked to lower the costs of new rental housing and hold grocery store chains to account by managing price increases.

Affordability is baked into our approach on climate change too, and pricing pollution is just the same. First, let us be clear: Carbon pricing is not about raising government revenues, as the opposition has consistently implied. The enabling federal legislation, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, mandates that every cent of proceeds from the federal system is returned to the province or territory of origin. Jurisdictions that requested the federal system have the option to receive those proceeds directly and use them as they see fit. Nunavut and Yukon did just that with the federal fuel charge. They are using the proceeds to reduce affordability impacts on households and fight climate change.

In other jurisdictions, the federal government returns these proceeds directly to Canadians. For the fuel charge, this means that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces all receive a climate action incentive rebate four times a year. Ninety per cent of fuel charge proceeds in these provinces are returned via climate action incentive payments delivered directly to households, something that the Conservatives ignore entirely. These are set amounts based on the number of people in the household, with a 10% top-up for rural households.

Over eight out of 10 households receive more money back than the carbon price will cost them in a given year. It is worth pointing out that this 80% is made up of the 80% of households that need it the most. The wealthiest Canadians tend to use more heat, have larger homes, drive less fuel-efficient vehicles and maybe heat more than one home, such as a cottage. There is nothing wrong with that, but the fact is that when one uses more fossil fuels, one ought to pay for the emissions. There are average amounts for lower- and middle-income households, and they particularly benefit. A typical family of four in Ontario received $976 in 2022, and they will receive more this year.

I am often asked about how this is supposed to work. Why collect a carbon price and then return all the money back to households? How can this change behaviour and spur on innovation? The key is the way we return the proceeds. Because the payment is the same for all households, Canadians still get a benefit from reducing pollution, for example, in choosing a cleaner vehicle, switching to a heat pump to heat their home, or insulating their home through one of our many green housing grants. They get the same payment regardless, and they come out ahead. However, the climate action incentive payment reduces the impact on their pocketbook if they cannot make a change right away. Households that do not have short-term options to reduce pollution, such as those where someone just bought a new car or cannot find an insulation contractor, do not see an impact on their finances overall. The incentive payment cancels out most or all of the carbon price.

This approach gives Canadians the flexibility to address climate change when it makes sense for their particular situation. Moreover, it complements the many other measures we have put in place to help Canadians transition to a cleaner economy affordably, such as a $500-million program to support the move to home heat pumps rather than dirty and expensive home heating oil.

There is a lot to talk about today. The clean fuel regulations are another powerful market-based tool for climate action that the opposition is firmly against. I would point out that, since we are focusing on affordability, the number one cost driver of food, particularly vegetables grown in drought-prone places such as California, is climate change. When we resist the need to fight climate change, we are resigning ourselves to more expensive food from places like that.

I will go back to the clean fuel regulations for just a minute. This is another part of Canada's action plan, which is expected to deliver another 26.6-million tonnes of emissions reductions annually by 2030.

Our plan to reduce emissions and ensure affordability is working. The Conservatives should stop standing against climate action.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take my feet and talk about the opposition motion.

There was so much that was factually wrong in the member's speech that it would take me all day to go through it point by point. He talked about all the supposed affordability measures his government has put in place. I have one simple question: Since he has been the member of Parliament for Milton, how much has food bank usage gone down in his hometown?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, here is the very problem. The Conservatives want to use the pain of Canadians to drive this notion that fighting climate change is affecting their pocketbooks. If we ask any economist, that is wrong. The member is leaving the room; he apparently does not want to listen to the answer.

The reality—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously the member cannot say who is or is not in this chamber. He has been here long enough that he should know the rules.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind hon. members that they are not to mention who is in the chamber and who is not.

I also want to remind members that they have opportunities to ask questions at an appropriate time and should not be trying to ask questions or make comments while someone else has the floor.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here for an honest and open conversation and debate on important issues, and it is common decency to stick around as colleagues answer questions. That is the least we can ask of each other.

To get to the core of the question, we are all focused on affordability. It is wrong to conflate fighting climate change with rising affordability costs and the hardships of Canadians and to use that to fight a carbon price that we all ran on.

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

Madam Speaker, people in Ontario did not pay a carbon tax. We were part of the cap and trade system, but then Doug Ford and his gang of grifters came in from Etobicoke. They ran on a buck a beer. They said they were going to get people a buck a beer, but decided to rip up all the EV charging stations and then kill the cap and trade program. Now Ontarians are having to pay into carbon pricing because of Doug Ford and his gang. Doug Ford is scrambling, saying we are going to be the automobile centre of the planet after ripping up the EV charging stations. The only thing we have actually seen Doug Ford deliver was an $8-billion boondoggle to his corrupt insider friends.

Could my hon. colleague talk about the Conservatives' propensity for backroom deals and the danger of a grifter government during a climate crisis?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows the importance of fighting climate change, because wildfires tore through his riding this summer.

I agree that when Doug Ford decided to cancel the cap and trade, which created billions in revenues for the Province of Ontario to fund health care, green initiatives and education, it left Ontarians in the lurch. However, the federal backstop program delivers the proceeds from the carbon levy in Ontario directly back to Canadian families.

It is very much worth pointing out that the Conservatives are exactly the same as the Doug Ford government. They will not say that we need to fight climate change and lower our emissions. They will put up billboards, as Doug Ford has done around Ontario, saying the future is electric, but when it comes to actually implementing policies, having good ideas, discussing with experts on how to fight climate change and how a carbon price does that, they do not show up at those meetings. They are not willing to have those conversations, and they do not ask experts; they rely on bumper stickers and T-shirts for all their policies.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I agreed with everything the parliamentary secretary said. Unfortunately, the only thing that makes the Liberal climate record look good is the complaining from the Conservatives suggesting that we should do nothing.

I note that the parliamentary secretary is wearing an orange shirt for Orange Shirt Day and reconciliation. The government is pursuing the Trans Mountain pipeline, and a Crown corporation has broken a sacred promise to the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, changing its plans to go through the first nation's territory and destroy its most sacred area. The National Energy Board CER just made the decision to do what TMX wants and, yet again, violate UNDRIP. Could he comment on that?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague and friend is doing okay. I can hear in her voice that she is a little under the weather. I wish her a quick recovery.

The member underscores it perfectly. I hope she does not mind it if I borrow her earlier idea that if one does not believe in climate change, one might not believe in gravity either. It is so important that we continue to stand up for what is right. That includes truth and reconciliation, climate action and justice across our country, three things that the Conservatives consistently seem not to care about.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, today is a really important day because, if there is anything I can say after reading the text of the motion, is that it lays bare something that we have seen throughout the debates of the House, which is that the Conservatives do not care about climate action. They do not take climate action seriously, and that is deeply troubling after the summer we have seen in this country, with wildfires and hurricanes, and the impacts they have had on individuals right across our country.

What some people may find surprising, and I appreciate the opportunity to show again, is that it leaves bare that the Conservatives do not have an economic strategy to build a strong Canadian economy for the future. That is what Canadians are looking to us for. They want to make sure that we are building an economy where there are strong, good-paying jobs for the future, which, when we look at what the Conservatives are asking for from us today, is something they are unable to deliver on. In fact, they are trying to take things apart.

We have a choice as a country. We can stay locked in our old ways, keep our heads in the ground and not look at where the future lies, or we can move to the future. The world is in a global change toward green technologies, a green economy and clean energy.

The questions I would have for the Conservatives as we go forward are these: Are they going to follow the Blockbuster method? How is VHS working for them? That is where they are trying to take Canadians back to. To be serious about this, because this is serious, Canadians want to have those opportunities, such as good-paying jobs and strong, safe communities. Dismantling tools to fight climate change just moves us in the wrong direction.

Climate change is putting homes, farms and businesses at risk from increasing natural disasters, which has a cost, and I will touch on that a bit, but the other piece is that not taking action on climate change also impacts trade and investments in our country, which would impact the average Canadian who needs to know that we are there with a strong plan.

The other question I have, beyond the question about VHS, is this: Why do the Conservatives not trust Canadians to make the best decisions by being able to keep money in their own pockets? In the next couple of weeks, Canadians will be receiving cheques or direct deposits as part of the carbon pricing plan in the federal backstop provinces, which is the underpinning for how carbon pricing works in their country. It is putting money into their pockets to let them choose what they are going to do with that money. That means they could carry on as they did before and spend that money on it, or they may be able to use that money to make some changes in how they are going to do things, such as letting themselves keep more money in their pockets.

It should not come as a surprise to us that the Conservatives do not want Canadians to keep more money in their own pockets because there is another piece they did not support. As of this year, Canadians will have $3,000 more of tax-free earnings when they file their taxes this year than in 2019. In 2019, the average Canadian's personal exemption would have been around $12,000. This year it is $15,000. That is $3,000 more in the pockets of Canadians. They get to choose how to use that.

I am not sure why the Conservatives are opposed to these measures. They are the kinds of things that, when I talk to people in my community, they want to see. They want to be able to make their own decisions with their money. Not only that, they want more tax-free money and want us to act on climate change, so I am a bit surprised when I see that.

It is really important that we talk about how carbon pricing is efficient. That is something that is recognized by leaders in economic thinking. Perhaps the Conservatives do not want to take my word for it, so let us look at what The World Bank said about a price on carbon pollution.

It stated:

A price on carbon helps shift the burden for the damage back to those who are responsible for it, and who can reduce it. Instead of dictating who should reduce emissions where and how, a carbon price gives an economic signal...In this way, the overall environmental goal is achieved in the most flexible and least-cost way to society. The carbon price also stimulates clean technology and market innovation, fuelling new, low-carbon drivers of economic growth.

I want to underline that it “stimulates clean technology and market innovation, fuelling new, low-carbon drivers of economic growth”. I think that is what Canadians are looking for from us.

Let us look at what the OECD had to say about it when it was reviewing the Canadian carbon pricing system. It said, “The carbon pricing benchmark provides an economically efficient mechanism for raising the bar on emission reduction.” “Economically efficient” sounds like what Canadians are looking for from us. I would question why the Conservatives seem to be so opposed to a system that would be economically efficient, fuel economic growth and actually help to build a strong economy.

An economist from the University of Calgary commented on this and said that, while regulations would dictate what one must do to cut back on fossil fuel use, carbon prices leave it to a consumer or a business to decide what works best for them. He said that to let the person or business decide what is best for them makes it the most efficient way, and usually the cheaper way, to address carbon emissions.

It is a personal choice and it is a cheaper way to address carbon emissions. That sounds to me like a win-win, but Conservatives seem to be opposed to that, so I will have to leave it with them to figure out why they feel so strongly. Canadians want that efficiency. They want us to stimulate clean technology and market innovation. They want a solid economy that is creating good-paying jobs. They want to be able to make decisions with their own money.

Let us talk about some other pieces for these businesses in out country. Let us talk about our international relationships. Earlier this year, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, came to speak to us. In her speech, she really emphasized the importance of the work we are doing, including the importance of carbon pricing. I will remind members opposite, in case they were not properly listening, that she said:

As renewable energy is the future, our partnership with Canada is crucial for speeding up the transition to clean energy. Canada and Europe are world leaders in the fight against climate change. We have written our climate targets into law. We have set carbon prices, and we have proven that it is possible to grow the economy and reduce emissions.

New challenges await us, however. The global race for clean technology is on. There is growing competition to attract investment and to control the most important links in key supply chains. In this more competitive environment, Canada and Europe must be on the same side.

That is a trading partner of ours. That is what she delivered to us as a message. Carbon pricing was part of the message she brought to us. I want to underline something, because I believe many of us here celebrated when we signed the free trade agreement with the E.U., the CETA agreement. We were very excited about that.

I have news for members opposite, in case they have not been paying attention to this. Europe is introducing a carbon border adjustment in the coming days. That means that products coming from and being manufactured in a country that has a carbon price in place will face fewer barriers being traded into the E.U.

This is about simple economics. We want to have that access so our businesses can thrive. Then through those strong businesses, we can have good-paying jobs for Canadians. Again, what the Conservatives are proposing today removes those opportunities for us.

I know I am running out of time, so I will just add that the other piece is investments in Canada. We are seeing international industries coming to Canada for battery manufacturing, zero-emission vehicles, battery recycling, solar farms and all that. What do they say? They say they are choosing Canada because we have one of the cleanest electrical grids in the world and because they believe that we are at the forefront of the green transition.

If the Conservatives are that opposed to carbon pricing, they can go into those communities where those jobs are being created and tell those people that they do not support those jobs being created. We have a strong plan for a green economy.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals, backed by the NDP and the Bloc, are simply out of touch with everyday Canadians. She says that it is about simple economics for people to thrive. Right now, gas is $2.15 a litre, the highest in North America. The member for Kootenay—Columbia just told me that across the line, it is $1.30 Canadian. People are struggling. A seventh of food bank users are people who are working and cannot afford to eat.

Does the member not recognize that enough is enough, and that it is time to axe the tax?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought I outlined in quite a bit of detail why carbon pricing works as a system. We recognize people have been struggling with the high costs of inflation, but the carbon price is not the reason. In fact, the Bank of Canada said that the contribution of the carbon price to inflation was 0.15%. That is not even half a per cent; it is not even a quarter per cent. It is 0.15%.

Absolutely, we must be helping Canadians in this difficult time. When I mention things such as the fact that they can keep $3,000 more of their earnings this year through an increased personal exemption, which the Conservatives did not support, those types of measures are what we are doing to help Canadians. This is along with the Canada child benefit, which is indexed to inflation, as well as child care agreements for $10-a-day child care. We are there to support Canadians. We recognize they need that support, but getting rid of carbon pricing is not going to help Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the reasonable tone of the member's speech, especially in the face of such an irrational motion as we have before us today, which calls on cutting one of the only tools we are using to fight climate change. This is being done in the face of huge fires in my own province this summer.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that there is some urgency when a provincial government had to spend nearly a billion dollars fighting fires this summer, just like British Columbia did. That is money that could have gone to health care. That is money that could have gone to affordability. If we do not fight climate change, government resources are going to be taken up more and more in just responding to the crisis.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question, because I did not have enough time to go into that part, which is that climate change costs us. The example of the firefighting costs in B.C. is a wonderful example of that, and when I say “wonderful”, I mean a terrible example.

The Canadian Climate Institute looked at it and said that the cost to GDP for every Canadian, or per person, would be $630 by 2025. That is just the cost of climate change to us, as an estimate, by 2025, and it goes up from there. Climate change costs us. People are losing their homes, their businesses and their farms because of it. We want to protect them from that.