Debates of Jan. 29th, 2024

Toronto—St. Paul's

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Ms. Bennett, member of the electoral district of Toronto—St. Paul's, by resignation effective Tuesday, January 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

It being 11:03 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again and talk to Bill C-234.

Groundhog Day is just a few days away and it feels like Groundhog Day again on this bill, Bill C-234.

It was basically two years ago, almost to the day, that I presented this important bill to the agricultural community and the backstop provinces to help provide some relief in the form of carbon tax exemption for on-farm use when farmers were heating their livestock barns and drying their crops. It has really added up in the last two years, and it will continue to cost them.

Before I get into it, I want to highlight a couple of facts about the state of the country and where we are today. There are four key priorities on which this party, our leader and members of Parliament will focus, which is axing the tax for our agricultural community as well as for all Canadians. They are really suffering under high inflation, high bills and high costs, whether they are seniors at home, or families or whether people are on their own. Inflation is out of control. By axing the tax, it will give Canadians a chance.

The other thing is that we have a massive housing deficit. We need to build more homes. We need to encourage cities and municipalities to get out of the way and allow this to take place.

We also have to get control of our federal budget and federal finances. The debt and deficit are way out of control. The debt has doubled in eight years under the reckless spending of the Liberal government. We need to get this under control, not just for the sake of the overall finances and the well-being of our country, but for the trickle-down effects it has on Canadians in every corner of the country. High spending by government leads to inflation.

The last thing is that our city and country roads and streets need do be safe. I cannot believe how much has changed in eight years in regard to crime and the safety of our streets. We have to act now. Canadians are counting on us. It does not matter if people live in the downtown of a city, in a suburb of a city or down a country road where I live, everywhere is being impacted. It is the catch and release, catch and release and a person is out the door.

On Bill C-234, I would like to highlight one thing, maybe a bit of a brag. I was at a Grain Farmers of Ontario meeting for the Huron county chapter during the recess of Parliament. I have some nice numbers to report.

The average corn yield for corn in Huron county, and let us call it Huron—Bruce, is 200 bushels to an acre. Soybeans are over 55 bushels to the acre. These are all above the provincial averages. Soft red winter wheat is 101, soft white winter wheat is 99 and hard red winter wheat is 97. Those are great yields for Huron—Bruce. We are very proud of that. It is a testament to the dedication of farmers up and down every country road.

I attended a co-op annual general meeting, of which I am a member. What really struck me during his comments, and he does not owe me anything, as I am just there as a member and not as an elected member of Parliament, was that he was talking about the best way we could help farmers. He is looking at it himself.

He said that the best way we could help farmers was to actually cut that carbon tax. He said that farmers saw it every month on their bills and that it was incredible how much that was adding up. He said that the best way to provide them with relief was to cut it 10¢ a litre.

On another side note, they also sell fuel. They sell gasoline and diesel as well. As a side note, 17¢ a litre, on average, is the carbon tax on gasoline for people who drive to work and back, or to take their kids to hockey or baseball or to take their parents to doctors' appointments, maybe in the city.

Bill C-234 is for farmers. At the end of the day, if it accomplishes one thing, it is to cut the carbon tax on farming. It is an inflationary tax, it is relentless, it is indexed and it will continue to rise. At the end of the day, if the members of Parliament in the House could cut this tax, it would provide relief to farmers. At the very end of the economic chain, it would provide relief to Canadians, who go to the grocery store every week to provide for themselves. That is a fact. If we can do one thing in the House to start off the session, it would be to do that.

Farmers work hard. They use technology. I heard something from a couple of Liberal-appointed senators and it was disappointing to hear what they had to say. I am not putting words in their mouths. We can go back and look at the comments they made in committee. We can go back and look at the comments they made in their speeches. They said that farmers were laggards when it came to technology. That is the furthest thing from the truth.

Farmers across the country are some of the most progressive business people we will find. Whether in their barns, their greenhouses, their tractors or even their financial accounting software, they are very progressive. They take on technology whenever they can and they make it more efficient, so they have more crops to feed more people and to feed the world, which is really what they are doing.

I would like to set the record straight there. Farmers are very advanced in their implementation of technology. If we look at the last 10 or 15 years, even 20 years, it is night and day. Wherever there is an opportunity, farmers are doing it. They are doing it for yield and they are also doing it for the betterment of their land.

If we look at agriculture in the last number of years, we can see the inflation with which farmers are dealing, such as increased costs in machinery. Increased costs in all inputs. Fertilizer, pesticide sprays and seed inputs are all increasing. Rent, land, and the cost of building sheds and grain storage units have all gone up.

Agriculture is not a high-margin business. We have talked about this before in the House of Commons. Farmers are price-takers; they are not price-makers. They take what they can get on the open market and what the basis is in Chicago. That is the reality of agriculture.

Any time the government can help them, for example, by cutting the carbon tax, it is a huge relief. As I have mentioned in the House many times, one example is a hog farmer down the road from where I grew up. A year ago, his bill just for the natural gas he used on his farm was $4,300. The carbon tax on that bill was $3,300. If we think about that, how does that make sense? How does it make sense for farmers, who have invested hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of dollars on their farm to make the highest-quality food and have the highest-quality crops out there, to get bills like that? It is not feasible.

As I have said, it will continue to increase every year until 2030-31, and it will put a lot of farmers out of business. At that point in time, we will have to be concerned about food sovereignty not only in our country, but we will also have to be concerned about the amount of food we export around the world to feed other nations. It really is a precarious time.

Let us think about it. Many people have said it in the House, as has the the leader of our party, that it is cheaper to put a load of food or produce on a transport truck in Mexico and ship it through many states to bring it to Canada. It is cheaper to truck food from Mexico than it is to grow it on a farm here and sell it at a farmer's market or into the open market.

How does that make sense for Canadians? How does that make sense for Canadian farmers? How does that make sense for the environment? It just does not make sense at all.

Speaking of the environment, the Liberal government has asked farmers to pay a steep price with this carbon tax it has hammered them with, but when has it ever recognized the environmental good they do? There is a rebate, $1.70-something per $1,000 of allowable expenses, so if a farmer has $1 million of allowable expenses on their farm, they will get $1,700 back in rebates. That is a slap in the face.

Farmers who have woodlots on the farms they have maintained in Ontario, where the emerald ash borer is, have harvested the trees and made use of them, but they have lost that. They have ethical woodlot practices.

In the fall, a lot of farmers nowadays are planting fall cover crops. They do that on their own, because it is good for the soil and for their land, and it increases the humus matter in the soil. That is a fact.

With respect to crop rotation, I will speak specifically about the province of Ontario. The crops I mentioned in the beginning are used for crop rotation. It is good for the soil. It helps minimize the pests in the environment that impact the crops, which is good. Environmental farm plans and nutrient-management plans are all things that farmers do to be good neighbours and good stewards of the land.

Of course, with technology, no-till drilling goes back a long way. Quite a few years ago now, in the eighties, I can remember as a kid going out to Don Lobb's farm, and the University of Guelph at Ridgetown was out there doing plot experiments to perfect that. There were a number of farmers in Huron County and other counties that started this in the region. It has grown and is continuing to grow. Now we see how they even rip small sections of land where the seeds are going in to preserve the soil and the humus and not disturb it, because they know the value of that.

I will go on to one more highlight. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done at least two studies on this bill, Bill C-234. According to his last report, by 2030-31, the Liberal government will have taken nearly $1 billion out of farmers' pockets because of the carbon tax. Think about that. Farming is a high-capital, low-margin business that provides food for Canadians to eat. It has very low margins, and the Liberal government is taking $1 billion out of the back pockets of farmers. That is really unconscionable to me.

The last thing I will highlight is the piece of the bill that has been sent back from the Senate. I understand the independence of the Senate. The bill is now back in the hands of the House of Commons, where members of Parliament are going to decide how it is going to go. What I would ask of members of Parliament in the other political parties is this. Let us not drag it out. Let us not delay the bill longer than it has already been delayed. It is already two years old. We can have some debate. We can hear what the other parties are thinking: if they have changed their minds, if they like it better, and so on. Over the last two years a lot has changed in the economy, such as interest rates and inflation, and these are things that are impacting farmers everywhere they go.

Therefore, I would ask the Liberal Party specifically to allow some of its members to have a say, but to be reasonable. Let us not kick this too far down the road. Let us have good discussions, a good debate and exchange of information, and a timely vote on this to send it back to the Senate and let the senators deal with it again. I think that is the reasonable and logical way to do it because, at the end of the day, members are not helping me, but helping the farmers at home. When we can directly help farmers and indirectly help consumers, that is great.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I will take some questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, happy new year to you and all my colleagues.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Huron—Bruce for his remarks today. I will start by saying that he will have my support for the motion to keep the bill as is. That is a commitment that I have made very clearly in the House, including to my agricultural community in Kings—Hants. I want to make a comment and then ask a question.

The comment is around the idea that Liberal senators somehow blocked this. I would reference the Hon. Colin Deacon. He was appointed under the Prime Minister. He supported the bill. I would point to the Hon. P. J. Prosper, appointed under the Liberal government. He supported this bill. I would also point to the Hon. Rob Black, a really strong agriculture champion, appointed under the Liberal government, who supported this bill.

My point is that I think the Conservatives were left wanting in terms of their advancement of this bill in the Senate, including that upwards of five of 15 Senate colleagues did not vote on the crucial vote that actually sent it back here. I want that to be on the record.

My question for the hon. member is, if he is unsuccessful with his motion to keep the bill as is, does he intend to bring a subsequent motion, in particular around the three years? The barn heating and cooling is an important element. Maybe we could find some type of agreement in the House for just three years, so that we could encompass, largely, what the bill intended. Does the member intend to do that, if his motion cannot win a majority in the House?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I already presented the motion a couple of weeks ago. It takes out all the amendments that came from the Senate and puts it back in its original form.

I appreciate the member for Kings—Hants. We have a good working relationship. However, I would also point out that the Liberals appointed six other senators, just in the last couple of months, to get this bill passed. He knows one senator who was appointed really well. It is Rodger Cuzner, who spent 20 years as a Liberal member of Parliament in the House of Commons. I understand the member's points, but the Liberals also appointed quite a few Liberals to the Senate.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of keeping the bill in the same form that passed the House at third reading.

I have been on the agriculture committee for a long time, and I hear the Conservatives talk a lot about the carbon tax. However, I would like to hear from my hon. colleague about the other costs. I do not think that is talked about as much in this place.

How does the Conservative caucus propose to deal with the immense costs that are being foisted on farmers from the effects of climate change? We know the summer coming up is going to be particularly bad for farmers in Alberta. What about the high input costs? What is the policy in dealing with those? Also, when are the Conservatives going to speak up to address the outrageous profits in oil and gas? Those, by themselves, completely obliterate any effect the carbon tax would have. Oil and gas profits have increased by over 1,000% since 2019. When are the Conservatives going to address that incredible cost on the backs of farmers and Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a colleague of ours submitted an Order Paper question on the cost to administer the carbon tax, which I believe is $82 million a year. That is outrageous in and of itself.

In regard to the environment, what I would say to my hon. colleague is this. Farmers are not the problem. I know he was not saying that farmers were the problem; I realize that. Farmers are doing their part. In life, we have to be able to do what we can and what is feasible. Farmers get up every day and do what they can to provide for their family; to pay their bills to the banks, co-ops and everything else; and to be good to the environment. That is the reality of being a farmer.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent and really honoured the work that our farmers do to feed us.

In my riding, over Christmastime, I met with a local woman who had to shut down her business because of the cost of butter. Eight years ago, when she started, it was $2.49 a pound. It is now upwards of $7.49 a pound. That is a 300% increase.

How would this bill help with that butter effect that we have seen with inflation and help the cost of a household item like butter come back down?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just simply, at the end of the day and at the bottom line, if this bill could do one thing, it would be to axe the tax for farmers so that there are lower prices at the grocery store. That is what at the end of the day we have to do. If all the elected members of Parliament want to help people in their ridings, I am telling them that this is one way they can get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member said, and I would like to provide some comments in regard to some very specific things that he put on the record this morning.

First and foremost, let me emphasize one of the biggest misrepresentations of reality that the member tried to portray. That is to give the impression in any fashion whatsoever that the government does not recognize the true value of our farmers and what they do, not only in local communities but for the broader world. That does a disservice to the farmers. We, at least on the government benches, recognize that the farmer is the one who experiences climate change at the ground level in a very real and tangible way. If only there were Conservative members of Parliament who recognized that climate change is a reality, because farmers know and appreciate and understand that climate change is in fact a reality.

We have a substantial agreement. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, leading to approximately $3.5 billion. We have heard of the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership, which is there to support farmers in the community in dealing with issues like climate change. They are tangible dollars to support farmers in the advances that they have taken and to encourage continued advances in regard to recognizing and fighting climate change reality.

The member stood in this place and mentioned, right at the very beginning, the Conservative Party agenda. I suspect we might be hearing more about the Conservative agenda. He said the Conservative Party has four priorities, and priority number one is axing the tax.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members are saying, “Hear, hear!” They like that priority. How far the Conservative Party has come from the last general election, when that member and every other member who was elected in that election, or all candidates who ran in that election, campaigned on an election platform that said they supported a price on pollution. Now they are saying that they just want, at all costs, to axe the tax, which kind of feeds into the idea that they have no concept of the reality of climate change and the responsibility of good government to bring in policies to deal with climate change.

Whether it is the Ukrainian government, the Canadian government or many states in the United States, they recognize that the price on pollution is a positive policy.

Priority number two for the Conservative Party, as the member across the way said, was dealing with housing. No government in the history of Canada, with a possible exception on a per capita basis in the 1940s, has invested more in housing than this government has in the last eight years. When the leader of the Conservative Party was the person responsible for housing, he was an absolute and total disaster on the issue of housing.

Let us contrast that to this government, which has a number of housing programs to deal with what the member across the way said was the Conservative Party's priority. There is a myriad of programs to support Canadians. Never before have we seen a national government take such a proactive approach to dealing with the issue of housing.

Priority number three that the member referenced in his opening remarks is that the Conservatives would get federal spending under control. Canadians need to be aware of what that hidden Conservative right, MAGA agenda is all about. The Conservatives' agenda is to look at ways in which they can cut back on valuable programs that Canadians are very much dependent on and want to see. Whether it is programs like child care, dental care or whatever it might be, the Conservatives' priority number three is to cut government expenditures. The member just said that.

Whether it is programs like child care, dental care or whatever it might be, the Conservatives' priority number three is to cut government expenditures. The member just said that.

As the Conservatives said, there are the top four items. The fourth item is the issue of crime. There is a difference in approach between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the issue of crime. Whether it is urban or rural, we believe we need to take action that puts a stronger emphasis on repeat offenders, as we saw with the bail reform bill, which took a huge effort not only from this government but also from provincial jurisdictions and many other stakeholders, including the courts, to bring forward legislation. However, the Conservative Party wanted to filibuster and prevent its quick passage, even though everyone else in the country recognized the importance of that bail reform legislation.

On those four priority issues the Conservative Party talks about, I would suggest they will be found wanting. I look forward to the ongoing debates on those issues and others.

When we talk about our farming community, the member made reference to the hog industry in his comments. He said that the hog industry was in trouble, and he talked about a hog farmer in his riding or close to his area. He tried to give the impression to those listening that hog farmers are experiencing a difficult time.

This is not to take away from addressing those important issues, whether one is a hog farmer, a cattle farmer, a wheat farmer or whatever they might be. As a government, we are very sympathetic and are working with our farming community in order to ensure that we have good, sound policy. However, the Minister of International Trade was in Winnipeg just the other day, and we met with Manitoba Pork and with the hog industry at the research centre with the University of Manitoba. Manitoba's hog industry is doing better than it ever has, period, and I believe somewhere around eight million piglets are born in Manitoba every year now. That industry is creating not only thousands of direct jobs but also thousands of indirect jobs as well.

As a government, we recognize that the farming community, whether it is dealing with animal waste or making sure of the quality and the health of the earth, continues to be sustainable well into the future. We will find that government policy and how it works with the different stakeholders supports just that. We invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars every year to ensure we are there to support farmers in a very real, tangible way, and we will continue to work with the industry.

We disagree wholeheartedly with the Conservatives' number one priority of getting rid of or axing the carbon tax. It is highly irresponsible. I look forward to one day being able to knock on a door and to reinforce to my constituents that the Conservative Party does not have any idea or concept. The MAGA Conservative Party of today does a great disservice to the constituents I represent. At the end of the day, climate change is real, and the Conservative Party needs to start being more honest and transparent with Canadians about the environment issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, although it is already January 29, I do not think it is too late to extend my best wishes to everyone. I hope we can engage in constructive politics. That is exactly what we are going to try to do this morning.

Listening to the speeches, I feel as though this is being treated like an either-or issue. One side is saying “axe the tax” while the other side is saying that we need to send some sort of message and that they will be there to help. The Bloc Québécois falls somewhere in between. We are reasonable people. We believe in sending a message and offering incentives for the climate transition, but we also believe in a climate transition that is fair and equitable for everyone. That is what I am going to talk about this morning: the agricultural exemption.

The agricultural exemption is an expression I am using more and more often in an attempt to get it to stick in people's minds, so that everyone understands that farmers—the people who feed us, who work extremely hard and whom we thank—deserve respect and support. There are different ways of offering support. Bill C-234 granted an exemption to a specific sector, and that is why we were in favour of it. There needs to be more support for sectors where there are fewer or no exemptions.

I paid close attention when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government was speaking. He said his government is there for farmers and is supporting them, but that is not what I am seeing on a daily basis. If the Senate amendments are adopted, I want the government to make a formal commitment to supporting the climate transition in meaningful ways, especially in sectors where there is no alternative, such as grain drying. Farmers are being asked to use less pesticide and herbicide, to protect shorelines and wetlands, to maintain grasslands, to recultivate maginal land. We have to support them as they do that and give them the help they need. We have to be smart about this. That is the point of my speech this morning. If there is no exemption, there has to be compensation. There has to be support, intensive research and development and investment programs to help these sectors. That is key.

We have been talking about Bill C‑234, known in the previous Parliament as Bill C‑206, for the past four years. In the beginning, the bill was about grain drying. As the study progressed, the heating and cooling of certain buildings was added. Then an election was called. After that, Bill C‑234 was introduced, and it specifically addressed grain drying and the heating and cooling of certain buildings. We studied the bill. Now the Senate has sent it back to us with an amendment that cuts out buildings and shortens the bill's lifespan. It is certainly not the same bill that we passed. Obviously, we have some reservations. However, it is back in alignment with the original bill and puts the focus where it is needed the most.

I have to say that I am concerned about the Conservatives' tactics this morning. I am not entirely comfortable with all the parliamentary procedures, but when I see the opposition responding to the Senate before the government does, I have to wonder whether the procedures were followed. Could this not have been discussed earlier?

I thought the Conservatives' goal was to set targets and come up with slogans. When I talk about the Conservatives' goal, I do not include my colleague from Huron—Bruce in that. I know he cares about farmers and is doing this for the right reasons. I am talking about the strategy in general. Do the Conservatives want to turn this fight into a slogan, so they can go back to the kind of aggressive partisan politics we saw when this bill was being studied in the Senate? I would remind my colleagues that when we were debating a motion here dealing with this, bullying was a very serious problem.

That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that I wanted us to engage in constructive politics. I invite everyone to proceed in an intelligent way, to present intelligent arguments and content, and to engage with people from other political parties to reach a consensus in order to move things forward. We should not just be trying to score political points ahead of the next election.

What we should be doing right now is having a look at the work done by the Senate. We should be analyzing and improving it. How can we improve it? We have two options. We could reject the amendments and refer the bill back to the Senate. That would probably lead to a ping-pong match, forcing us to redo the work and set new deadlines. Bill C‑234 stayed in the Senate for a long time. Will it come back to the House? How long will it take? We have no control over the date of the election.

We have no control over whether the bill will be sent back. When will it come back? Is the second option not better? It is worth taking time to consider this bill. We could make tangible progress now and establish the principle of the agricultural exemption. The purpose of Bill C‑234, beyond the grain drying exemption, is to establish the agricultural exemption, the fact that there are some sensitive sectors that need to be supported or exempted. If the bill is adopted as amended, that is the message it will send. That will be a win for grain farmers with respect to grain drying. This was very well explained by my colleague from Huron—Bruce just now.

They have no alternatives, nor do they control sales prices. When costs go up, their profit margins go down. That is just not right. We cannot do that to the people who feed us.

At the same time, with the amendments that the Senate is proposing, we would continue sending a message about the environment. We cannot forget that side of things either. We need to continue doing that. Pollution must have a price, but sectors like agriculture must not be the ones who have to pay that price. They need to be supported in all of this. When it comes to buildings, perhaps the alternatives are not so far out of reach. Of course, for many farmers, many of those solutions have not actually been implemented, but they are more within reach than in the case of drying.

I would like to ask the government the following question: Is it committed to quickly implementing a bold and substantial program? I am talking to the parliamentary secretary, but this question is also for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We need to give farmers access to the technology that we are asking them to have but that they are unable to get. That is the key.

We must not forget that the the carbon tax is a federal tax. It was created for the provinces that were doing nothing for the environment. We need to think about that too. If we were to do away with the carbon tax, as the Conservatives are proposing, what message would that send to the other governments? Would we be sending them the message that they too can do away with the carbon tax?

For the benefit of my Conservative friends, I would point out once again that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. The fact that the Bloc Québécois has supported Bill C‑234 from the beginning is a major gesture of goodwill toward the farming community, because the measure puts Quebec farmers, who are not currently entitled to the exemption, at a disadvantage. It sends a message to all governments that an agricultural exemption is inescapable. That is why we supported the bill. That is why Quebec farmers encouraged us to do so, to show their solidarity with westerners. That is why we did it, at their urging.

At the same time, we are putting our people at a disadvantage by voting for Bill C‑234. I would like to drive that point home for everyone. We are putting our people at a disadvantage. The proposal we are debating this morning may strike the right balance. Could the Senate's amendment be the ideal way to achieve the mission we were given, the mission to establish an agricultural exemption? Would it not create an exemption without placing Quebec producers at an undue disadvantage? I am asking the question.

We are well aware that some farmers will be disappointed if the Senate's amendments are adopted. However, there are other ways to get things done. We can take the grain drying exemption now and prevent the bill from getting bogged down again thanks to the kind of intimidation, threats and other things that have absolutely no place in a democracy. We can put the matter to rest, move on and keep working on the buildings issue in a different way. I will not turn my back on farmers. We will not turn our backs on them. We need proper dialogue, research and development.

Bill C‑234 must succeed. It would never have seen the light of day without the initial and ongoing support of the Bloc Québécois, which also agreed to officially recognize the agricultural exemption principle. I thank my colleagues for that. My question is this: Do we want to send the bill to the Senate and keep bickering over it, with media clips and slogans, or are we willing to grasp the tangible gains within our reach? The answer should be obvious.

We always try to do politics with the future in mind, not the next election. We intend to stick with this approach.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with Bill C-234. It does not seem to want to go to the Governor General just yet.

As previous colleagues have said, this is a bill I am intimately familiar with. We did see a previous version of the bill in the 43rd Parliament, and of course, now that we are here at the beginning of 2024, the bill has had an approximately two-year journey to go through both houses of this Parliament, only to end up back in the House because the Senate has decided to amend it.

I want to remind hon. colleagues and all Canadians who are watching this debate of something, because I know a lot of the agricultural sector is probably tuning in right now, and members of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance have a very real interest in this bill and want to see us pass it in the same form it was passed by the House at third reading. What I want to remind everyone of is that the third reading vote is quite remarkable. The bill passed by a vote of 176 to 146. Just so everyone realizes this, that Conservative bill would not have made it to the Senate if it had not been for the support of the New Democratic caucus, the Bloc Québécois caucus, two Green Party members and a handful of Liberals.

We tend to try to bring a narrative in the House that it is just one party doing all of the work. The beauty of a minority Parliament is that sometimes the opposition can come together on an idea that has its merits and can use its combined majority vote to pass legislation the government may not agree with. It is a far better experience for members of the opposition than I ever had during my first four years in this place, when I was facing a majority government. It is a lot more worthwhile to members on this side of the House because we are able to work in a collaborative environment and to actually get things done when they may be in opposition to official government policy.

It was a notable vote, and that vote was the result of a lot of deliberation not only in the House of Commons but also at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have been a proud member since 2018. We have heard quite definitively from many witnesses with intimate knowledge of the agricultural sector that these exemptions are necessary.

I was here in 2018 when the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought in. I believe, if memory serves me well, it was part of a budget implementation act at the time. If we look at the original legislation, the existing statute of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, we can see that when the Liberal government at the time drafted the legislation, it included significant exemptions for farming activities. There is a list of eligible farming activities, fuels and equipment, because the government realized that agriculture is in a unique position and that sometimes farmers do not actually have an option to switch to a different kind of fuel source. Many sectors in agriculture are still reliant on fossil fuels to conduct their operations, and that is going to be a fact for the foreseeable future, hence the exemptions that were put in the original act.

When I look at Bill C-234, I think the language in the bill that was passed by the House at third reading is in line with the spirit and intent of the original statute, which is why I gave it my support. It is why I will continue to give my support for the version of the bill that was passed by the House at third reading.

The basic premise behind carbon pricing is to incentivize a change of behaviour to a less polluting fuel source. However, we heard very clearly from many people who are involved in the agriculture sector that there are not commercially viable alternatives for the farming activities referenced in this bill. If we cannot use this tool to incentivize a change of behaviour, it is not going to be very worthwhile. This is why, when we look at the text of the bill and how the agriculture committee amended the bill, we recognized some technologies may be coming online and showing signs of early promise but are not in any shape or form ready for commercial viability.

We also wanted to signal to the sector that we are putting a short time frame on this. That is why we see referenced in the language of the bill the fact that there is an eight-year sunset clause, so the provisions that originally existed in the statute will come back into force after eight years, giving the industry a break for a short amount of time and giving it the signal that we expect change in the coming decade.

With respect to the carbon tax debate in this place, I am filled with a lot of remorse at the state of debate. I do not think it actually does great service to the complexities and dangers that climate change is presenting to Canada and many countries around the world. I regret very much that the state of debate around the carbon tax is that it has been reduced to a rhyme on a bumper sticker. That is a great disservice to the very clear and present danger that climate change presents to our agricultural sector.

If we want to look at one of the key reasons food price inflation is so high, we need only look to the state of California, which has been going through unprecedented drought-like conditions because of a changing climate. Since California acts as a breadbasket for much of Canada, when farmers are unable to produce as much as they did in years previous, that, of course, means there is going to be a supply shortage and increased prices.

I am very worried about what the upcoming summer is going to be like. Look at the summer we went through in 2023, with fires burning out of control in so many different provinces, levelling a clear and present danger to many agricultural operations. We can see the snowpacks that are in such a reduced state in the Rocky Mountains right now. They feed all of the major river systems in the Prairies. What are we going to do when farmers start running out of water in our prairie provinces? That is going to be a monumental crisis, and I do not think the debate around the carbon tax gives enough attention to the significance of that.

I also do not think we give enough conversation to the fact that farmers are dealing with massive input costs. There are gross farm revenues, but the farmer gets only a small portion of that at the end of the day because of the input costs: fuel, fertilizer, transport and so on. Farmers have enormously high input costs, and one of the best ways we can serve our farmers is to put in effective policy dealing with those input costs, helping them change the way they farm and putting in strategies to help them reduce fertilizer use, because it is possible to do that and also maintain the same kinds of yields.

As well, we need to talk a lot more about the power imbalance that exists with the corporate-controlled grocery sector. That is why farmers have been on the front lines of asking parliamentarians to put in a grocery code of conduct.

Last but not least, if we are not going to talk about the ridiculous oil and gas profits, we are doing an extreme disservice to everyone who is listening to this debate. We can go on and on about the carbon tax and its costs for Canadians, but if we are not going to talk about the fact that since 2019, the oil and gas sector has seen over a 1,000% increase in net profits, that is a disservice to the debate. I keep asking my Conservative colleagues to confront the elephant in the room, which is that the real reason people are paying through the nose for so many goods and services is that oil and gas companies are milking Canadian families for all they are worth. High profits mean someone is paying. It is Canadian families from coast to coast to coast that are lining the bank accounts of a very profitable oil and gas sector.

I will conclude by saying that with respect to Bill C-234, New Democrats are going to honour the third reading vote that we presented to the House last year, part of the 176 votes to 146 votes. Therefore, we support a message to the Senate rejecting their amendments and honouring the bill in its form at third reading in the House.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we have to rise to speak to Bill C-234 once again.

Before I get into the meat of the speech that I want to bring up today, I do want to give some thanks. I want to thank the member for Huron—Bruce for bringing this private member's bill forward, as well as the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who brought this bill forward in the previous Parliament, which shows how much work we have put into this legislation.

I would also like to thank those senators in the red chamber who made the right decision, one based on facts, not fiction. I know there was a lot of intimidation and bullying going on in the Senate as the Prime Minister and the environment minister were personally phoning senators to support the amendments to this very important bill. However, about 40 senators stayed strong; they represented their regions and represented the facts of the discussion and debate. I think that what this all comes down to today is to try to get the amendments removed and get the bill back into its original form and back to the Senate. This is a discussion about fact and fiction.

My comments today are going to be for my colleagues in the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party who have strongly and staunchly supported this legislation all the way through. They have done so because they understand the importance of agriculture. They understand the importance of the economic viability of Canadian farm families and the critical role they play in feeding not only the world but also Canadians, ensuring that we have affordable, nutritious food grown right here in Canada to support Canadian families and Canadian consumers.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government is making decisions based on ideology and fiction. The environment minister was very clear that if there were another carve-out of the carbon tax, he would resign as environment minister. Therefore, we now know that the whole fallacy of the carbon tax being an untouchable part of the Liberal climate change policy is not true. The Liberals have already done a carbon tax carve-out for home heating oil that was focused basically on Atlantic Canada, but when it comes to a piece of legislation that is supported by every opposition party in the House, and even by a handful of Liberals, they are not willing to listen. It is about picking and choosing winners and losers when it comes to who gets a break from the carbon tax and who has to pay it.

Here is a fact: Passing Bill C-234 and offering an exemption to the carbon tax for propane and natural gas would save farmers close to a billion dollars by 2030. That is a billion dollars that farmers now have to pay the Liberal government, when they are already paying record-breaking input costs on feed, fuel, fertilizer and many other inputs. We found out early last week not only that the billion dollars is being taken out of the pockets of farmers by the Liberal government but also that the GST is being charged on top of the carbon tax.

We have all known that, so we have been putting private members' bills forward. My Conservative colleague has put forward a private member's bill to remove the GST from the carbon tax. However, we now know the numbers, and they are staggering. The GST on the carbon tax alone cost Canadians almost $500 million last year. By 2030, it will be a billion dollars. Cumulatively, over the past several years and by 2030, Canadians will have paid $6 billion for GST just on the carbon tax, not on every other good and service they use. It is no wonder that Canadians cannot afford to put food on the table, put fuel in their car and pay their mortgage. Certainly, it is no wonder that farmers are struggling every single day. They are looking to these types of pieces of legislation that would offer them some financial relief.

The next fiction of the Liberals is that there are commercially available alternatives to propane and natural gas on farms, especially when it comes to heating and cooling barns. We know that is not true. Electric heat pumps are not going to heat a 100,000-square-foot chicken barn that is built with state-of-the-art technology. The Liberals should be applauding Canadian farmers for what they are already doing.

Here is another fact: The average global emissions that come from agriculture are about 26%. In Canada, the emissions that come from agriculture are 8%. This is a stat that we should be applauding every single day. It shows what our farmers are doing to ensure that they are the strongest environmental stewards of their land, soil and water. However, instead of being a champion for Canadian agriculture and applauding what farmers are doing, the Liberals are punishing them with the carbon tax and defending it every step of the way.

There are no other commercially viable options. There is no way to change behaviour for farmers who need natural gas and propane to heat their barns and to grow their food in greenhouses.

During the recess, we had three or four days in southern Alberta when it was -37°C. I guarantee everyone that a heat pump was not operating and not sufficient to ensure the health and safety of cattle, pork and poultry in those operations. However, at -37°C, those farm families are still out there making sure that we have quality, affordable food to eat every single day.

Here is another fact: The amendments we are discussing today, which were passed by the Senate, were already proposed by the Liberals in the House of Commons at the agriculture committee. Those amendments were voted down by the elected members of that committee. We have gone through this discussion but, again, fiction.

This is not about viable options for the Liberals. This is about trying to kill a bill that would provide a carbon tax carve-out for farmers.

Another fact is that, in his food report study, Professor Sylvain Charlebois at Dalhousie University reported that policies such as the carbon tax on farmers are going to increase the wholesale cost of food by 34%. Again, these are costs that are being put onto the backs of farmers, but, down the road, they will impact Canadian consumers who are struggling to put food on the table every single day.

We have two million Canadians accessing the food bank in a single month. It is unbelievable that this is happening in a country like Canada.

This is a discussion about fact and fiction, and I want to thank the members of the opposition parties who have stood by facts. They have stood by Canadian agriculture and the importance of growing affordable, nutritious food here in Canada. I hope they will continue to stand with us on Bill C-234 while the Liberals focus on fiction.

The House resumed from December 12, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

This is my first time rising in the House in 2024, and I want to wish everyone a happy new year.

It is 2024, and the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. That is the reality. That was the reality in 2023 and 2022, but the cost keeps going up every year.

That is why the Conservative Party has a very focused common-sense plan. We have four priorities that we want to work on in Parliament, and they are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop crime.

After eight years in office, this Prime Minister has managed to drive up the cost of living at the fastest pace in 40 years by doubling the national debt and printing $600 billion. He has increased inflation and interest rates at the expense of the working class and our seniors, and he did so with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois completely agrees with the exorbitant spending increases and the cost of government, which are creating a burden for Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of all of this government spending in the fall of 2023. It supported the tax increases on gas, which punish Quebec farmers and workers.

The common-sense Conservative Party is the only one offering an alternative to this destructive and costly policy implemented on the backs of Quebeckers.

First, we will eliminate the second carbon tax, which does indeed apply to Quebec.

Second, we will control spending by eliminating waste. We are going to get rid of the $35-billion infrastructure bank, which has not delivered a single project for Canadians. We will get rid of the ArriveCAN app and the so-called green fund which, according to the officials involved, is now a scandal on par with the sponsorship scandal. We will cut spending on consultants, who now cost every Canadian family $1,400. In eight years, this Prime Minister has doubled the amount spent on outside consultants. These are extraordinary costs that do not produce results for Canadians. It is work that could have been done by the government, by public servants, whose numbers have ballooned by 50%.

We are going to introduce a common-sense law, a dollar-for-dollar law. Every time ministers in my government increase spending by one dollar, they are going to have to find one dollar in savings to offset that spending. Instead of increasing the national debt, inflation and taxes, we are going to cap spending. Once the government is forced to reduce the cost that falls on the backs of our people, it will enable workers, businesses and our economy to grow.

Let us talk about our workers. There is a war on work right now. Workers are being punished with sky-high tax rates that claw back more and more of every dollar they earn. A common-sense Conservative government will lower taxes and reward work here in Canada, for our workers, small businesses and all Canadians, so that we can be a country that rewards work.

We will protect the paycheques of ordinary Canadians and ensure that they can earn bigger paycheques by doing away with unconstitutional laws that prevent natural resource projects from going ahead. We will allow Quebeckers to build dams and develop mines and other projects that generate wealth for our country, instead of sending money to China or other countries that are dictatorships. We will keep that money for ourselves, so that Canadians can have bigger paycheques. We are also going to build houses.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of housing has doubled, rent has doubled, the money needed for a mortgage on an average house has doubled, and the down payment needed to buy that same house has also doubled. In Montreal, it has tripled.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Montreal has increased from $760, when I was the housing minister eight years ago, to $2,200 now. Red tape has blocked the construction of 25,000 housing units over the past six years. Thousands of construction projects across the country are in limbo because of red tape. In Vancouver, whose former NDP mayor is incredibly incompetent, it is even worse. He added additional costs of $1.3 million to each housing development built. These increases are tied directly to the red tape and taxes charged by the governments.

In Quebec City, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Trudel with my Quebec lieutenant. He told me that $500 of the monthly rent for these apartments goes toward taxes and red tape, the costs charged by the government. For apartments that rent for $1,000, half of that amount covers only the taxes and the bureaucracy. That cost is too high. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will encourage municipalities to speed up construction instead of obstructing it.

The federal government pays out $5 billion to municipalities through the sales tax program. Quebec receives about $1 billion. There are already a lot of conditions attached to that money, a lot of federal conditions. However, those conditions do not include accelerating construction. That is why we are going to work with the Quebec government on a new infrastructure agreement that incentivizes construction. We will tie the amount of money that each municipality receives to the number of houses and apartments completed in the previous year. That would mean that municipalities like Victoriaville, Saguenay and Trois-Rivières would receive substantial bonuses, because there has been a huge boom in construction there. Last year, for example, construction increased by 30% in those municipalities. That should be rewarded. Real estate companies are paid according to the number of homes they sell. Construction companies are paid according to the number of houses they build. We should pay local bureaucracies on the basis of the number of homes they allow to be built. This would encourage the acceleration of construction.

We should also insist that every transit station be located near apartment buildings. Transit stations should be surrounded by large apartment towers. Across Canada, in Vancouver, Montreal and elsewhere, we see beautiful transit stations, yet there is almost no housing around them. It is ridiculous.

The federal government provides funding, but often a third or a half of the amount needed. We should insist that this money not be invested if there are no apartment buildings where our seniors and young people can live next to a public transit station. That is how we are going to speed up home construction. We are going to insist that CMHC provide funding for apartment buildings within two months, not two years. Executives should be fired unless they meet that deadline. Finally, these homes should be located in safe communities.

After eight years under the leadership of this Prime Minister, crime has increased by nearly 40%. He has increased crime by allowing the same small groups of repeat offenders to keep committing the same crimes over and over, and by letting them out on bail the very same day they are arrested.

A Conservative government will replace bail with jail. We will target real criminals who use guns and seal our borders instead of targeting hunters and sport shooters. We will treat and rehabilitate people with drug addictions instead of decriminalizing crack, cocaine and other drugs, as the Prime Minister has already done in partnership with the NDP in British Columbia.

What I have been describing here is common sense. This is the kind of common sense used by ordinary Canadians. For decades, there was a common-sense Liberal-Conservative consensus that led to our extraordinary success. A Conservative government will rebuild that consensus to give Canadians back the country they love and deserve. That is our goal. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and, finally, stop the crime. It is common sense, and that is what we are going to do.

Madam Speaker, I wish you a happy new year. It is 2024 and the Prime Minister is still not worth the cost. He is not worth the crime. He is not worth giving up the country that we know and love. After eight years, everything costs more, crime is running rampant, housing costs have doubled, the country is more divided than ever before, and the Prime Minister seeks to distract and attack anyone who disagrees with him in order to make people forget how miserable he has made life in this country after nearly a decade in power.

Our common-sense counterpoint is very focused. In this session of Parliament, we will fight to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is how we are going to turn around the mess the Prime Minister has created in eight years.

Let us quickly touch upon that mess. After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled. This is after he promised that those housing costs would go down. In fact, they rose 40% faster than incomes, the worst gap in the G7 by far and the second worst among all 40 OECD nations. It is twice as bad as the OECD average, with roughly a quarter of OECD countries actually seeing housing affordability improve over the last eight years. Here in Canada, under the Prime Minister, we have seen it worsen at the fastest rate in the entire G7.

The Prime Minister has created a situation where only 26% of Canadians are able to afford a single-family home. It now takes 25 years to save up for a down payment on the average home for the average Toronto family, when 25 years used to be the time it took to pay off a mortgage. After eight years of the Prime Minister, it is now more affordable to buy a 20-bedroom castle in Scotland than a two-bedroom condo in Kitchener.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, a criminal defence lawyer reported on Twitter that numerous clients have asked if she can help extend their prison sentences so they do not have to live in this housing market and find a place to rent. In other words, the Prime Minister's housing market is worse than prison by the judgment of several people who actually live in prison.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, we have 16 seniors crammed into a four-bedroom home in Oshawa according to its food bank, which told me it had to house middle-class seniors together. They are all losing their homes because of the incredible rent increase the Prime Minister's policies have caused.

We have homelessness skyrocketing across the country. Every town and centre now has homeless encampments. Halifax has 30 homeless encampments for one medium-sized city. After eight years of the Prime Minister, who would have imagined that we would have 30 homeless encampments in one city, but that is the misery that he has created through his policies that are not worth the cost of housing.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister makes the problem worse. He gives tax dollars to incompetent mayors and bureaucracies to block homebuilding. The worst incompetence, of course, has been by the former mayor and the present mayor of Toronto, and the former mayor of Vancouver blocking construction in those cities and making it uninhabitable for many of the people who should be able to afford a home. We now have the second-slowest building permits of any country in the OECD. That is why we have the fewest homes in the G7, even with the most land by far to build on.

We were told that the media darling Minister of Housing, who was brought in in the fall, was going to fix all of this. He was going to hold photo ops right across the country, and all of a sudden there would be more building. What happened was that housing construction actually went down. There was a 7% reduction in housing last year under the leadership of the current housing minister.

Is it any surprise, when the guy who destroyed our immigration system was put in charge of housing, that we got a destructive result? It is not me accusing him of ruining the immigration system. It is his own Liberal successor. The current Liberal Minister of Immigration says that the system is out of control. In his own words, he claims that his predecessor was giving study visas for students to come and study at what he calls “puppy mills”. Those are his terms. I would never have used that term. It is insulting. They are actually human beings, not dogs. That is the language we get from the current immigration minister to describe the chaos that his own predecessor caused in the international student program and the temporary foreign worker program, not to mention countless other programs that have now been overwhelmed by fraudsters, shady consultants and bureaucratic incompetence. Now they take the guy who ruined all of that and say that this is the guy they are bringing in to resolve the housing crisis.

It is no wonder it gets worse and worse by the day. The Liberals' only defence is that they are spending lots of money. Failing is bad and failing expensively is even worse. That is what the Prime Minister has done after eight years. It is not only in housing. It is in generalized inflation. After eight years, inflation hit 40-year highs. After eight years, the Prime Minister has increased the cost of food so quickly that there are now two million Canadians, a record-smashing number, who are required to go to food banks in a single month. We have students forced to live in homeless shelters in order to afford food. We have seniors who say they have to live in tents in order to be able to shop and feed themselves, because food prices have risen so high.

In Toronto, one in 10 Torontonians are now going to a food bank, enough to fill the Rogers Centre seven times. If the monthly users of the food bank in Toronto alone were to go to the Rogers Centre, the place would have to be filled seven separate times, just to accommodate them all. Who would have thought we would have this many hungry people in Canada's biggest city, a city that has elected no one but Liberals since 2015? This is the result from that.

In that same city, crime and chaos rage out of control. In the adjoining suburbs, we now have stories of extortion, where small businesses receive letters saying that if they do not fork over big dollars to international crime syndicates, they will be shot at, their houses will be burned, their families will be targeted, and the government does nothing to protect them. Who would have thought that Canada would be so vulnerable to this kind of criminality and chaos that these foreign criminal syndicates would think Canada so weak and so easy to target that they could go after innocent small business leaders and their families in order to shake them down for money? Yet that is what has happened.

These same business owners go to bed at night with one eye open, because they know their car could be stolen as they sleep. I told some stories yesterday to the caucus, incredible stories of people in Brampton whose cars just vanished in the middle of the night. The cars go over to Montreal where they are put on a ship and sent off to the Middle East, Africa or Europe where they are resold at a profit. They are not even inspected as they go onto the ships in these containers.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spends billions of dollars trying to buy back the legitimate property of licensed law-abiding firearms owners. He believes that the problem is the hunter from Nunavut or the professional sport shooter from Nanaimo, when in fact the real problem is the criminals.

Common-sense Conservatives are going to put an end to this madness. We are going to bring home the country we know and love. Let us go through the common-sense plan.

We are going to bring home lower prices by axing the carbon tax. It starts with passing Bill C-234 to axe the tax on farmers and food so farmers can make the food and Canadians can afford to eat it. Let us pass the bill unamended today and let Canadians eat affordable food. It is very easy. The House of Commons passed it once before. The Senate, under duress and pressure from the current Prime Minister, then sent it back with unnecessary amendments. Now the other opposition parties are flip-flopping and wavering. They agree in principle with the Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax, but say they might consider giving farmers a break on it. Now they are not so sure. They are siding with the costly Prime Minister again on keeping the tax on our farmers. Every time our people go to the grocery store and see those rising prices they will know that the NDP has betrayed working-class people in favour of greedy government with higher taxes on farmers and the single moms who are struggling to feed their families.

We are going to axe the tax on home heat not just for some or for a short time, but for everybody, everywhere, always. Common-sense Conservatives call on the Prime Minister to be consistent and not just temporarily pause the tax in regions where his polls are plummeting and his caucus is revolting, but rather let us axe the tax for every Canadian household to heat their homes in this devastatingly cold winter. It is incredible how cold it was in Edmonton, -50°C, and the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre voted to tax the heat of Edmontonians. Not only that, the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre wants to quadruple the carbon tax on the home heat of Edmontonians, so over the next several years, as the winter cold comes in and people crank up their heat, their bills will rise increasingly faster. In some places now the carbon tax is more expensive than the actual gas that people are buying. We are going to be sharing the bills that some of my caucus members have so that everybody knows how badly the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition are ripping off Canadians for the crime of heating themselves in -50°C weather. We are the only party that will axe the tax for them and for everyone, everywhere, always.

Our common-sense plan to bring home lower prices includes capping the spending that has driven inflation, the $600-billion increase in spending and debt, which means printing money. Printing money bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. In fact, government spending is up 75% since the Prime Minister took office. He has nearly doubled the cost of the government at a time when the economy has barely grown at all. In fact, it is shrinking while the government is expanding, which means it is gobbling up an increasing share of a shrinking pie and there is less left for everyone else. Right now the government is rich and the people are poor, because the Prime Minister cannot stop spending, and his greedy NDP coalition counterparts push him to spend even more of other people's money. Our common-sense plan would cap spending and cut waste. We would get rid of the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank, the $54-million ArriveCAN app and the billion-dollar so-called green fund, which is really a slush fund.

We would cut back on the money wasted on consultant insiders, who now consume 21 billion tax dollars a year, an amount that is equal to $1,400 for every family in Canada. We would cut back on this waste to balance the budget, and bring down inflation and interest rates, so that Canadians can eat, heat and house themselves.

We are going to unleash the growth of our economy. Instead of creating more cash, we would create more of what cash buys. We have the most powerful resources, perhaps the greatest supply of natural resources per capita of any country on earth, and we are very good at harvesting those resources to the benefit of our people and our environment at the same time.

The Prime Minister, with the help of the NDP, has been driving the production to other countries, where they pollute more, burn more coal and add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The Prime Minister would drive the production away from Canadians, who use among the cleanest electricity grids on Planet Earth, instead of bringing it home to this country. Our common-sense plan would repeal Bill C-69 and replace it with a new law that would not only protect the environment and consult first nations but also get projects built so that we can bring home paycheques for our people and take the money away from the dirty dictators of the world.

I was able to recently announce our new candidate in the Skeena—Bulkley Valley riding, the great Ellis Ross, former chief of the Haisla Nation. He is responsible for bringing Canada the biggest-ever investment in its history, which is the LNG Canada project. It is a project that was approved by the former Harper government, and the only reason it was able to go ahead under this government is that it gave the project an exemption from the carbon tax. Had the tax applied, the project never would have occurred. Had Bill C-69, the anti-resource law, been in place, the project never would have happened.

By the government's own admission, this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world by millions of tonnes because it will displace dirty, coal-fired electricity in Asia by sending clean, green Canadian natural gas, liquefied using hydroelectricity and our natural cold weather, and sent abroad on our shortest shipping distance, which means burning less fossil fuels to get it to market. This will displace more emission-intensive forms of energy in countries where they need to cut back. That is a solution to fight climate change and protect our environment, and thank God we had the visionary leadership of the great Ellis Ross to make that project happen, along with that of Stephen Harper.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has blocked every other LNG project from coming to fruition. There were 18 of these projects on the table when he took office, not one of them is completed. Only the aforementioned—

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we got a cheer over there. It was the Marxist member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He took that Marxist comment as a compliment, by the way. Believe me, he has told me that off the record. He tells us that he is speaking on behalf of the NDP. He cheers when he hears that the Prime Minister has blocked every LNG project.

That is going to be very interesting news for me to take to northern British Columbia and the first nations people, such as the Nisga'a. He cheers at the thought that the Nisga'a will lose out on their proposed liquefied natural gas project. That is the NDP of today. They used to stand up for the workers who had lunch buckets. They used to stand up for first nations people. That is a bygone era. Now, they cheer every time a working-class person loses a job and a community loses its industry. Shame on them. The good news is that they will not be part of my government.

We will stand with the Nisga'a. We will stand with the Haisla. We will stand with the other first nations of northern Ontario that want to see the ring of fire go ahead. The first nations people want to harvest our resources to empower their people and end poverty. We, as Conservatives, will remove the government gatekeepers and the radical ideologues, such that NDP member and the current environment minister, so we can get things built and bring it home to our country.

Those powerful paycheques would fund schools, roads and hospitals. They would improve our finances. That is what I mean when I say, “Fix the budget”. Yes, we have to cap spending and cut waste. That is the spending side of the income statement. However, we also have to bring in more revenue at lower tax rates.

How would we we do that? We would allow more production. We would have bigger and more powerful industrial projects and resource achievements, and we would have more paycheques for the people in the communities who would work on those job sites. We would generate the tax revenue at a lower cost to the overall population so that we could fund our cherished social safety net, with real money, sustainably into the future. That is how one fixes the budget: make more and cost less to deliver better results for the Canadian people.

The most basic result, though, would be for people to have rooves over their heads. After eight years of the Prime Minister, that is not possible. We would remove the bureaucracy that stands in the way of homebuilding. The reason we have the fewest homes per capita in the G7 is that we have the worst bureaucracy and the slowest permitting. My common-sense plan would require local bureaucracies to permit 15% more homes per year as a condition of getting federal money. Those who beat the target would get more money, and those who miss the target would get less, in exact proportion to their success or failure. We pay realtors based on the homes they sell, and we pay builders based on the homes they build. We should pay local bureaucracies based on the homes they permit. That would speed them up and get them moving. By the way, we would do it in a non-prescriptive way.

There are countless different ways a municipality could allow more housing. For example, today we learned one of the ways that cities block housing is by making renovations harder to permit. People might think, “What does a renovation have to do with new homes?” If one wants to renovate their home to create a basement suite, an over-the-garage suite or perhaps a guest house converted from an old garage or something like that on their property, they would need a renovation permit. That might be holding up housing. My plan would give a credit to the city, and therefore more federal money, if it were to allow a rapid conversion of one house into two or of a basement into a suite.

The reason I focus on this is that the Prime Minister has a proposal right now that he calls the “housing accelerator”, where he is having federal bureaucrats assess the processes of municipal bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats talk about the way things work. That would be like scoring a hockey game by having the referee go to the practices of the players to test whether they are doing the right skating drills, whether they are doing the right pre-game stretching and whether their diet plan is the best plan, rather than the simple and obvious way we score hockey games, which is by counting the number of pucks in nets. I want to judge a municipality's results based on keys in doors. There are pucks in nets and keys in doors.

The municipality can figure out how to do it. It is not our job to micromanage how cities increase their housing stocks. Some might sell land. Some might get rid of zoning procedures. Some might get their bureaucrats working faster and smarter. Some might allow more renovations of homes into duplexes. Some might find any other manner of creative ways to do it. It is not the federal government's job to micromanage. What we would do would be to pay for the result. That is how we would get the homes built so that, just like when I was minister and housing was affordable, it could once again be affordable in the future, and our young people could hope to get married and start families, which is something that has become next to impossible in most of our big cities.

These homes would be in safe neighbourhoods. The Prime Minister has unleashed crime and chaos with his catch-and-release system, which allowed the same 40 violent offenders to do 6,000 crimes in one year in the city of Vancouver. A common-sense Conservative government would make repeat violent offenders ineligible for bail so they would stay behind bars rather than reoffend. We would bring jail, not bail. We would bring in treatment, not more drugs, for our addicts, so we could bring our loved ones home, drug-free.

We would also reverse the Prime Minister's ban on our sport shooters and our lawful hunters. Instead, we would go after the real violent criminals and seal our borders. We would put the billions of dollars the Prime Minister is wasting going after lawful hunters and put them into scanning the boxes that come into our country, which bring in the drugs and guns, and scanning those shipping containers that are taking away our stolen cars, so we can stop them from leaving the country and keep our cars here, getting our insurance rates down so people can afford to drive again and do not have to sleep with one eye open during this looting of our vehicles the Prime Minister has allowed to happen.

The Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters. I want to protect Canadians from criminals. It is common sense. That is the common-sense agenda of the Conservative opposition in this forthcoming Parliament. We would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

To axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime are things on which we should all agree, so I call on the other parties to dispense with their radical ideologies and plans and unite around this common-sense effort to set four clear priorities. Who is ready to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime? Is everybody ready to do that? Let us bring it home.

I would like to introduce the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House declines to give second reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, since the bill fails to repeal the carbon tax on farmers, First Nations and families.”

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

The amendment is in order.

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

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party's fixation on the bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax” has caused the Conservative Party and the MAGA right to ultimately say things like they do not support the trade agreement with Ukraine. There are so many bizarre things coming from the far right under the leadership of the Conservative Party.

How does the member justify providing misinformation, or selected information, to the constituents I represent? When he says he wants to axe the tax, he is really telling the majority of the residents in Winnipeg North that he would also get rid of the rebate, which means there is going to be less disposable income because he has a desire for a bumper sticker. How does he justify that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that member is once again misinforming his constituents. Actually, I should not say that because they do not believe him, so he is not informing them of anything. He has misinformed himself because, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 60% of Canadians pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back in these phony rebates.

Now we have their big solution. They are going to give it a new name. They are going to rename the carbon tax. They think people will not notice their heating bills, gas bills and grocery bills are going through the roof under this tax if they just give it a new name. This is a carbon tax that rips off the people of Winnipeg, and he should be ashamed for allowing a temporary pause on the tax for some people in other regions while denying the people in his own riding, one of the coldest major cities in this country, that same pause. We will axe the tax in Winnipeg. We will axe the tax for everyone, everywhere, forever.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague is using his speaking time in the House to chant campaign slogans and even announce some new candidates for the next election, which is scheduled to take place in a year and a half, rather than talking about the bill before us.

That being said, I have not heard him mention the environment even once in all his famous election promises, even though he seems to want to win over Quebeckers. One thing I do know about Quebeckers is that they are worried about the climate crisis. We experienced unprecedented forest fires and floods this summer. One need only go to the Magdalen Islands, the Gaspé or my riding. In the last snowstorm, 30 feet of shoreline were lost to the sea because no more ice is forming. The well-known highway 132, which circles the Gaspé peninsula, will soon be under water. I think Quebeckers are worried about the climate crisis and expect their elected representatives to propose solutions to address it.

I would like to hear what the Conservative leader is proposing to fight the climate crisis.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and for being honest enough to say that the Bloc Québécois wants to keep this government in office for another year and a half. Her leader has said before that he wants to keep this Prime Minister in office. The Bloc Québécois voted for all of the economic policies that led to this increase in inflation and the doubling of housing costs. The Bloc Québécois completely agrees with the Prime Minister.

With regard to the environment, I did mention it in my speech. I said that the best way to protect the environment is to repatriate mineral and energy production to Canada. We have the highest standards in the world. The Bloc Québécois and the Liberals want to give that money to China, where they burn coal and use other processes to produce electric batteries.

I believe that we should repatriate production by giving the green light to projects such as hydroelectric dams in Quebec, carbon capture in western Canada and nuclear energy, which is emission-free. We should give the green light to those projects so that we can produce more emission-free electricity.

That is common sense.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity on at least two separate occasions to listen to the Conservative leader speak at length to Bill C-59. It will come as no surprise to folks in the House and to many Canadians that there are certainly many things about which I disagree with the Conservative leader, and there are some things on which we may find some agreement.

However, one thing that continues to surprise me is that we hear an analysis from the Conservative leader about the hardships Canadians are facing and the problem of inflation, but nowhere is there a mention of the fact that over 25% of the inflation Canadians have been subjected to over the last while, according to some credible economists who have published studies to this effect, has to do with outsized price increases by corporations that are well above the increases in costs they have faced.

The fact is that corporate greed is playing an important role in the inflation Canadians are experiencing, but that is nowhere in the analysis from the corporate-controlled Conservatives. It is not a coincidence, it seems, because by glossing over this incredible contributor to inflation, the Conservatives are doing a solid for their corporate pals.

I would like to hear the Conservative leader talk about the role of corporate greed in inflation and what he would propose to do about it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The first point I would make, Madam Speaker, is that the member seems to be suggesting that corporations were not greedy eight years ago because food prices were much lower then and that suddenly now, maybe it is something in the water, the level of greed in the country has grown dramatically over the last eight years, and that is the sudden cause of food price increases.

The reality is that big corporations always do well in an inflationary environment, and the reason is very simple. If we have stuff, then we get richer when stuff goes up in price; if we need stuff, we get poorer when stuff goes up in price. That is why inflation is always a tax on the poorest people to the benefit of a tiny minority on top. It is not just those who sell stuff, but also those who own assets who become better off.

That is why I warned, in the House of Commons, in the fall of 2020, that printing $600 billion was going to lead the billionaire class to become extremely wealthy, and it did. The gap between rich and poor has grown. I knew this would happen because when hundreds of billions of dollars are funnelled into the financial system, it balloons the assets of the people who have, and it increases the costs on those who have not.

Inflation is the most immoral tax. It is the tax that takes from the have-nots to give to the have-yachts. Not only will Conservatives get rid of the carbon tax on food, but also we will get rid of the inflation tax on everybody.