Debates of Jan. 29th, 2024

Public Accounts

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Milton. I also want to wish the member a happy birthday today.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for wishing me a happy birthday as I stand for the first time in the House in 2024.

I know my hon. colleague and friend on the other side has spent many years of her life feeding Canadians, so on behalf of Canadians who enjoy potatoes, I would like to say thanks. My family is from a similar region. The Dutch side of my family settled in southwestern Ontario and farmed apples, among other things. As we have discussed, farming is close to my heart as well.

It is important as well to talk about some of the quotes that the member used. I am a bit concerned, occasionally, about the selective use of facts, but I think everybody in this House is guilty of reading the things we agree with more commonly than the things we disagree with.

However, Sylvain Charlebois is somebody I am familiar with. I follow him and I read what he writes, and in the most recent “Food Price Report”, he was actually a bit more ambiguous with respect to carbon pricing than the member let on. His exact quote was actually “Suggesting that carbon pricing has a direct, linear effect on retail food prices would be misleading.” He also went on say that there are many factors, like climate change, that have a much larger impact on the price of food.

I would like to ask the hon. member, as a potato farmer, what impact climate change events like extreme weather, drought, floods and erratic precipitation are having on potato yields, because last year Canada's wheat yields were at an all-time low due to those climate change factors.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity to wish my colleague a happy birthday as well.

As my colleague said, yes, I have spent years of my life in food production. In fact, we heard from one of my colleagues on this side of the House today and from many farmers in my area this year that they have actually had a bumper crop. They have had higher yields than they have seen in years with some of their crops.

Yes, the carbon tax does affect the cost of food. As my colleague pointed out, we may agree to disagree with some of the references we hear, but on an overall scale, as a producer, I know first-hand that my input costs have gone up. If my input costs are going up, if the fuel is going up and everything is going up, I have to increase the price of the produce that I am selling to wholesalers. My costs increase, and therefore I have to pass those costs on to those who buy from me. As wholesalers, they have to make a profit as well, so they have to pass those costs on to the retailers that they sell their product to, and of course the retailers, because they are paying more now for the product, have to increase their prices to consumers. Therefore, I disagree with the premise that the carbon tax does not have an effect on the cost of food, because first-hand knowledge tells me that it absolutely does.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the question that was just asked, because I did not hear an answer.

The question asked about the impact of the climate crisis on farmers, on the cost of food and on families.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, this year we have seen record yields. I can say that in our harvest in the last crop year, I have seen record yields.

In the 50 years that my father farmed, and my grandparents before my father, and in my 45 years of life, I have been through years when we have had droughts, when we have had floods, when we have had record crops and when we have had not so good crops. Farmers are the biggest risk-takers I have ever met in my life. It is a gamble every year. They put something in the ground and pray and hope that Mother Nature is going to bring good weather so they can have an abundant harvest to make a good living.

Unfortunately, all the costs that we see, including the carbon tax, are not making farmers profitable, and if farmers are not profitable, they are not going to stay in business. That is going to mean for Canadians that food security is going to be in jeopardy, and not just food security, but food sovereignty.

The Liberal government and my colleague with the NDP need to stop propping up the Liberal government and actually support farmers and support axing the carbon tax for our agricultural producers.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is driving inflation. The carbon tax hits the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who transports the food, the grocer who sells the food and the family who buys the food.

The member across the way gets it, because he has heard it so many times. He is chuckling and throwing it across the floor, but if the member for Kingston and the Islands knows so well that the carbon tax is hitting the farmer, the trucker, the grocer and the family, then why will he not change his position and vote with us to relieve struggling Canadian families and axe the tax?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will say to Canadians that Conservatives on this side of the House will vote to axe the tax.

We are calling on the House right now to send Bill C-234 back to the Senate in its original form so we can give producers and farmers a break on the carbon tax so their input costs go down and Canadian families can pay less at the grocery store.

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

There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and recorded divisions are deemed requested.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, January 31, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Automotive Industry

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the NDP leader have consistently betrayed workers. They came in here promising to stand up for Canadian workers and sold them down the river simply to please their Liberal coalition partners.

I am rising today to follow up on a question I asked about the disclosure of details on massive government subsidies relating to electric car battery subsidies. The government is spending $40 billion on these subsidies. We are talking about roughly $3,000 per Canadian family. Every single Canadian family is on the hook for thousands of dollars for these subsidies.

We have found out that a series of subsidies that were promised as creating opportunities for Canadian workers will actually be subsidizing foreign replacement workers. Foreign replacement workers will be brought in to work on these subsidized projects. Therefore, the $40 billion in subsidies from Canadian taxpayers, roughly $3,000 from every single Canadian family, to create jobs for Canadians are actually going to subsidize corporations paying foreign replacement workers.

After this information came to light, Conservatives had a modest proposal, which is that Canadians deserve to see the contracts that the NDP-Liberal government signed when offering these subsidies. Did it seek to include in those contracts protections for Canadian workers? Did it seek to guarantee a certain number of Canadian jobs? Did it seek to prevent foreign replacement workers from being brought in as part of these projects or did the contracts it negotiated allow for this kind of foreign replacement worker activity on these projects?

Whether one is for or against these subsidies, or for or against allowing foreign replacement workers, it seems reasonable to me that the people who actually paid for these projects, the taxpayers, should be able to see the contracts and know whether the government did an effective or ineffective job in negotiating for workers. We have an indication that it did not do an effective job because we know foreign replacement workers are being brought in as part of these heavily subsidized projects. Either way, Canadians should be able to see what is in these contracts.

We brought this issue to committee. Initially, the New Democrats said they sided with us. In fact, I think the leader of the NDP asked a question in the House requesting the release of these contracts. Then, after a mere two or three meetings of Liberal MP filibustering, the New Democrats flipped. They folded. They buckled under the Liberal pressure to continue a long line of situations of the NDP facilitating Liberal cover-ups. We would expect in a minority Parliament that we would be able to get the information we need, yet that has not happened. The NDP bailed on workers and chose its corrupt coalition cousins instead.

My question for the Liberals is this: What did they offer the NDP leader to get the NDP to betray workers once again and instead vote to hide these contracts? What did the Liberals offer the NDP, and why are they choosing secrecy over the protection of workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be in the House this evening. I first would like to point out that it is great to see Conservatives stand up in the House, every once in a while, for workers' rights. It is rare, but on occasion it happens and it is wonderful. Over the last 30 years, Conservatives have been a bit of a thorn in the side of the labour movement in Canada, so to see Conservatives stand in the House and hear them advocate for labour rights in this country is movement in the right direction, we will call it. I am very proud to be part of a government and a party that are the first to table legislation in this country to ban replacement workers, so when the member opposite suggests that we are doing something to the contrary, I would just point out that is not accurate whatsoever.

I am very happy to respond to comments made by the member tonight, which were also made by the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, regarding the government's contracts with NextStar Energy to indeed expand our country's EV battery production capacity. I am a proud driver of an electric car and have been for almost two years. It is a fantastic vehicle, and I know that a more local production of that technology and innovations is going to spur on more electric vehicle use in our country and will lower our emissions, which is fantastic. It is exactly what we need in order to fight climate change.

Canada has taken the critical first steps to develop our EV battery supply chain, and that will stand to bring opportunities for other Canadian industries such as mining, EV assembly and car production. We must remember that the sector remains in its infancy here in Canada and around the world, and it is indeed a commonly used practice for firms to bring in experts when new equipment is to be purchased and installed, as is the case with NextStar. Given the size and complexity of the plant, as well as the fact that it is Canada's first plant of its kind, most of the specialized equipment is coming from overseas and must be installed by the suppliers.

With respect to experts, we have heard the leader of the Conservative Party and his disdain for expertise. He thinks it is crazy that there are people who are specialized; he thinks it should be done by just any old person, but that is not possible. We need to hire experts in order to do this, and this must happen before Canadians who are hired to run the equipment can be trained to use the equipment. I cannot emphasize that enough. All foreign specialists coming to Canada are coming for short-term, temporary assignments in order to install specialized equipment. No Canadian jobs are being displaced.

Not only is this standard practice, but it can also be seen to continue to promote Canada as a destination of choice. Restricting foreign workers would limit Canada's ability to attract strategic foreign investment, which is something that is at an all-time high in this country thanks to the fact that the government and our party invest in workers and Canadian innovation. Let us not forget that NextStar is committed to hiring 2,300 Canadians during the construction and equipment installation phases of the project, with another 2,500 permanent jobs for Canadians once the facility is operational. This is a great-news story, but the Conservatives want to turn the dial down and say it is not so great and they could have done better, when, in fact, they would never have invested in this industry in the first place.

Batteries represent a significant percentage of the value of an EV, and these plants will be the foundation of Canada's automotive industry moving forward. Failing to compete with other jurisdictions would not only risk the jobs associated with this facility but would also challenge Canada's ability to attract vehicle mandates as auto makers switch over the EV assembly. Ultimately, that would risk the success of our automotive industry in this country.

For NextStar's battery manufacturing facility that will supply EV batteries to vehicles produced by Stellantis in Windsor, this is a good-news story. Battery investments are closely tied to current and future EV assembly investments and jobs, and electrification is the future of the automotive sector. Therefore, for the Conservatives to stand in the House and suggest that we are doing less for jobs and less for workers is absolutely the opposite of the truth. It is a good-news story for Windsor and a good-news story for St. Thomas, and it is a great-news story for the EV sector in Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I could say in response to that comment, just about the disastrous economic management of the government, about the pain Canadians are experiencing, about the higher costs we are seeing, about the challenges in terms of job growth and opportunity and about the lack of homes being built, but the core point here is that the question was not answered.

The question was about whether the public could actually see the contracts. The parliamentary secretary says they are doing great work; it is incredible. He says they got a great deal here; everything is standard procedure and everything is sunlight and roses. Let them show us their work, then. If the member is so confident in what the government has done, then the contracts should be made public.

The fact is that the Liberals were filibustering at committee to try to hide the contracts from the public. The NDP leader joined in and betrayed workers who want to see what is in the contracts, and the coalition stood together to try to bury the contracts. What is the government trying to hide?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian workers and the labour movement in Canada know they cannot trust Conservatives. They know that Conservatives have never had their backs and they are proud of this government, with our NDP colleagues, for producing Canada's first-ever replacement worker ban.

We are banning scabs. It is going to be impossible to replace, which is so important for the labour movement's ability to organize collectively and bargain collectively. These investments with NextStar are no different. They will have long-lasting, widespread and positive economic impacts, and they will help to ensure the high-value manufacturing activities, namely battery production in southwestern Ontario, will continue to occur in Canada.

These are investments that workers in the labour movement in Canada know would be impossible with a Conservative Party at the helm and that is why they are so grateful for these innovations and investments.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by wishing the parliamentary secretary a very happy birthday.

In the past few years, Canadians have witnessed record-breaking temperatures, extreme weather events, forest fires and flooding. People have been evacuated from their homes and whole towns have been wiped out, yet under the Liberal government, big oil and gas are polluting more than ever.

A recent report shows how these oil giants are significantly under-reporting their emissions. In fact, emissions from the oil sands are potentially 6,300% higher than what is reported by the industry. Scientists have confirmed what indigenous communities from northern Alberta have been saying for decades. These massive corporations are threatening their health, threatening their livelihoods and poisoning their land. This is making people sick.

Oil and gas companies are pumping out carbon emissions at shockingly high rates, and the government can and should make these companies use some of their record-breaking profits to clean up their mess. Oil and gas CEOs are giving themselves raises, being rewarded with obscene bonuses, and making millions of dollars a year, while Canadians are struggling just to get by. They are worried about how they are going to pay rent and worried about how they are going to make their mortgage payments.

At the same time, Canadians are facing record-breaking temperatures, the worst wildfire season on record and devastating weather events. We are in a climate emergency, so why does the Liberal government refuse to hold oil and gas giants accountable?

After dragging their feet and having to be pushed to finally deliver a cap on emissions for the oil and gas sector, the Liberals announced a watered-down cap, full of loopholes, that had oil and gas lobbyists' fingerprints all over it. The oil and gas sector makes up the biggest portion of Canada’s emissions, and environmental experts have said that Canada must have a hard cap on oil and gas emissions if we have any hope of meeting our climate targets.

The Liberals have set a target of reducing Canada’s overall emissions by 42%, but they are giving their friends in oil and gas a break. Not only did they give oil and gas a lower target, but they have included the option for companies to buy offsets and essentially buy their way out of the cap. They admit their plan will only reduce oil and gas emission by about 20%. This means every other sector and everyday Canadians will have to pick up the slack.

The Liberals are making life harder for people, workers and families. Can the member explain to me why they are making life easier for oil and gas CEOs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and friend for the well wishes on my birthday and for standing up for climate action at this time.

I cannot say enough or emphasize strongly enough how nice it is to stand up in the House of Commons and talk about how we fight climate change, not whether we fight climate change. With the Conservatives, day after day, asking the majority of the questions in this House, it is a challenge occasionally. The vast majority of Canadians I talk to, the vast majority of Canadians, full stop, demand climate action. They want to help lower our emissions. They want our government to take strong action, and one of those strong actions was indeed our oil and gas emissions cap.

It was just in December that our government, with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at COP, announced a very ambitious plan to lower our emissions with an oil and gas emissions cap. It is the first of its kind in the world. We are the fourth-largest producer of oil and gas in the world, and we are the first-ever country to produce a cap on emissions from oil and gas production. It is going to lead the way on lowering emissions from this sector as we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels going forward.

Like I said, as the world's fourth-largest producer, it is a strong signal that we are sending internationally to the sector and to our colleagues in the G7 and G20. We are taking a leadership role in the energy transition. We are aiming to achieve net-zero emissions from the oil and gas sector by 2050, and the emissions cap will ensure that we get there.

The challenge, of course, is to reduce emissions while building a stronger, more resilient economy of the 21st century. That is why we are not doing this alone. It requires consultation with the sector to ensure that we are protecting jobs and recognizing that oil and gas still have a role to play in our economy and our society. Last December, we published a proposed regulatory framework, and we look forward to hearing from stakeholders on the approach in this document in the months ahead.

On a more personal note, I am a member of the environment committee, and I am looking forward to working more closely with my colleague from Victoria on the environment committee. We had the CEO of Imperial Oil at committee, late in the last session. I had the opportunity to question that CEO, who earns, as the member mentioned, about $17 million a year. He earns that money for taking something from the planet and leaving it in a worse place. The oil and gas sector and the oil sands, as the member rightly pointed out, are responsible for the largest proportion of Canada's emissions, but it is also the most carbon-intensive fuel in the world. It has been shown just recently, in an article that I think we both read, that it is up to 6,500% higher than reported. For some of those compounds, which are called organic compounds, the rate at which they are going into the atmosphere is upwards of 6,000% higher than had been indicated, which is absolutely atrocious.

The question I had for that CEO was about the Kearl spill with respect to effluent from tailings ponds. They insist that those tailings releases, as they call them, into a tailings pond have no effect on the environment and no effect on people's health, which is absolutely untrue. It is absolutely not accurate to suggest that there is no effect. It is having an impact on water quality. It is having an impact on cancer rates. It is having a deleterious impact on the environment and the health of first nations around the Athabasca watershed. It is an absolute travesty.

I could not agree with my colleague more that we need to do more to ensure that we are protecting the environment from the oil and gas sector, and the oil and gas emissions cap is one way that we are doing that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is genuinely sincere in his desire to do more, and I agree that the Conservatives' climate denial is beyond disheartening, but Canadians do not want to have to choose between denial and delay. They do not want to have to choose between bad and worse. The reality is we are in a climate emergency. We do not have time for Liberal excuses. We do not have time for Liberal broken promises. We definitely do not have time for a government that caters to oil and gas interests. Our planet is burning.

When will the government stop disappointing Canadians, stop giving breaks to its rich friends and stop listening to oil and gas CEOs who are raking in record profits and unreal bonuses while polluting our planet, and instead start treating this like the emergency that it is, close the loopholes and bring in a hard cap on emissions?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to emphasize that the CEO of Imperial Oil, Brad Corson, is not my friend. He is no friend of the environment, this government or the planet. That company is destroying the planet. Those operations are having a negative impact on the health and the well-being of the natural environment and the people who live on those lands and have done so, in the case of the first nations at Kearl, for millennia.

We will continue to hold oil and gas companies to account, and I will continue to demand better from oil and gas executives. However, our measures are working. We need to see the big picture on overall emissions. Overall, our emissions in Canada are on target, and they are coming down. In 2015, Canada was on a path for emissions in 2030 to be 9% higher than they were in 2005. Today, thanks to the work of so many Canadians, including that member, we are ahead of our initial 2030 target and firmly on track to meet the targets set out in our 2030 emissions reduction plan.

Carbon Pricing

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, the cost of living is unaffordable in this country. Hard-working Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables and gas in their tanks, as well as to keep a roof over their heads. This is the devastating reality across the country; prices on food, home heating, gas and just about everything continue to go up.

The most recent food price report predicted that the amount of money spent by the average family on food increases would go up by another $700 this year. That is on top of year-over-year increases.

Canada is in an affordability crisis, and it is a direct result of the incompetence and the failed policies of the Liberal government and, of course, its costly coalition. It is continuing to fuel this with its inflationary deficits and its costly and ineffective carbon taxes. The carbon tax scheme is making Canadian families choose among eating, heating and other necessities.

Food insecurity is soaring. In a country such as Canada and a province such as Saskatchewan, which has incredible, hard-working and innovative farmers and a wealth of agricultural opportunities, the reality that food insecurity is at a point of crisis in this country is truly unbelievable. However, this is the reality when we have a Prime Minister who is intent on punishing Canadians with his nonsensical and ideologically driven carbon tax policy.

In clinging to this disastrous policy, which has proven to do nothing for the environment, the Prime Minister has essentially told Canadians that it is more important for him to collect the carbon tax and to check a box than for a Canadian to earn a paycheque to be able to afford the basic necessities. In fact, the cost of his carbon tax is jeopardizing farm businesses; ultimately, this could further impact food security not only in our country but also across the world.

This is why my Conservative colleague put forward a bill that would have removed the carbon tax that farmers pay on farm operations, for a cost savings of nearly a billion dollars by 2030. That is billion with a “b”. However, the Prime Minister leaned on the senators he appointed to gut that bill and to use every trick in the book to stop it.

This impacts more than our farmers, because when we tax the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who ships the food, the processing facilities and the stores that sell the food, it is only common sense that the cost for Canadians to buy food goes up. The carbon tax scheme does not even end here. The NDP-Liberal coalition intends to quadruple the carbon tax.

When I asked the Prime Minister to axe the carbon tax before it bankrupts all Canadians, his response demonstrated to Canadians how clearly out of touch the government is with reality. Its band-aid solutions to food security are useless when it is contributing much more significantly to the crisis at the same time. Its costly carbon tax is driving Canadians to food banks in record numbers. In fact, in just one month alone last year, Food Banks Canada reported two million visits.

Lower prices on groceries and other basic necessities will give Canadians much-needed relief and relieve pressure on the many incredible food banks and charities that are oversubscribed across this country.

The carbon tax-obsessed Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. It is time to axe the carbon tax on everything permanently. In this way, we can lower prices for Canadians and start to address the affordability crisis in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to start this way, but unfortunately I need to correct the member opposite. The claims that the carbon price is increasing the cost of living are categorically false. There is not one economist in this country who is pointing to carbon pricing, carbon taxing, pollution pricing or any variation of our plan to lower emissions by putting a price on pollution as what is causing inflation or causing a rise in the cost of living in Canada.

We must be targeted in our approach to providing relief to families, because there is absolutely no question that things cost too much, particularly groceries. However, one of the previous speakers tonight pointed to the work of Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, who said that it would be false to point to any one factor, including carbon pricing, as the leading cause, the number one cause or the primary cause of food inflation in Canada. I will repeat that claims that the carbon price are increasing the cost of living are false.

Most low- and medium-income households are actually far better off because of the way the system works. Our approach to carbon pricing is cost-neutral and sends cheques back to families four times a year, such that hundreds of dollars are back in the pockets of many families. The bulk of the proceeds from the price on carbon pollution go straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies. That means that eight out of 10 households get more money back than they pay, on average. When Conservative members stand in the House and say to axe the tax, what they are actually saying is that we ought to take money out of the pockets of families that need it most.

It is not as though our opinions matter more than math in this situation. We are allowed to have our own opinions but not our own facts. In this situation, it is simply mathematics. Calgary-based economist Trevor Tombe has done the math for us, indicating that pricing carbon in this country is not a leading cause of inflation and not a leading cause of the challenges Canadians are facing at the grocery store.

I am committed to lowering grocery prices. I am committed to lowering inflation and to making sure that families can afford healthy food at the grocery store, and that is why I will say once again that eight out of 10 households get more money back than they pay. Conservatives have continually said that Liberals are obsessed with the carbon tax. We are not the ones asking questions about it every single day. We have done the math, and it works. Our emissions are coming down, and eight out of 10 families, including almost all of them on the bottom three quintiles of the income scale, are better off.

We are also not quadrupling the carbon price this year; that is just plain misinformation. The fuel charge is a slow, steady increase in the cost of pollution, and it is designed to increase by $15 per tonne of pollution each year, which works out to about three cents on a litre of gas. Gas prices go up and down by 10%, 15% or 25% throughout the year, and we do not see that having an impact on groceries. When gas prices are up around $1.50 or $1.60, we see oil and gas companies profit as a result, and we do not see Conservatives stand in the House telling oil and gas companies to lower their prices because they are having an impact on the pocketbooks of Canadians. However, when we price carbon and send the money back to Canadian families, they are up in arms.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada has recognized that putting a price on pollution is contributing less than 0.2% to inflation each year. As I have said, because of our quarterly climate action incentive payments, the vast majority of low- and middle-income households are getting more back than they are paying in the carbon tax every single year. That is four times a year. Recently, at the beginning of January, families received their first cheque.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the cost of everything is going up. I know that the parliamentary secretary said it is a slow and steady increase. It is a slow and steady increase on everything. Canadians pay the carbon tax on food, heat and fuel. These are basic necessities that Canadians need.

The Liberals have doubled down and promised to increase the tax. The parliamentary secretary even said so: slow and steady. They have promised to continue to make life more unaffordable for all Canadians: farmers, first nations, families, everybody.

Why is it that the member and his party are hell-bent on continuing to raise taxes, even if it may be slow and steady, to make life more and more unaffordable for Canadians?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the misinformation from the other side is concerning. Economists have confirmed over and over again that our climate plan is not responsible for recent inflation. It is math. It is not refutable. It is not as though my opinion matters more than facts. Facts matter.

It is also true that we are not bankrupting any part of our economy. These claims are concerning and straight up wrong. We know that there are ways to make life more affordable for Canadians that do not ignore the reality of climate change and ways that will lead to potentially devastating costs further down the road.

Our climate plan is working, emissions are coming down, and it is a very conservative approach to use a market-based instrument to lower emissions. I suspect that is probably why the Conservatives ran in their last campaign on a market-based instrument on pricing carbon. They did not win the last election. We did, so we were able to implement our plan. I am eager to hear what their climate action plan might be in the next election. I suspect it might be nothing.

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

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:53 p.m.)