Debates of Oct. 24th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the Westman residents. Today, as in past weeks, we are once again seeking clarity on why the Liberal government has refused to comply with a binding House order to produce documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, better known now as SDTC, and perhaps better known to Canadians as the Liberal green slush fund.

Let us take a moment to recap what we already know. The Auditor General conducted a thorough investigation into SDTC's governance after a whistle-blower came forward. What she uncovered was shocking. As my colleagues have stated, nearly 400 million dollars' worth of contracts were inappropriately awarded by the board of directors, all of whom had multiple conflicts of interest.

As reported by The Globe and Mail:

Some of the complaints alleged SDTC had made grants to startups and technology accelerators with ties to its own senior management, or to companies or technology accelerators that were ineligible because they were too established. The complainants also alleged a volatile workplace under [the CEO of Sustainable Development Technology Canada] Ms. Lawrence, marked by high staff turnover rates and stress-related leaves.

The Auditor General determined these complaints were rooted in serious issues within SDTC. Ultimately at issue is the Auditor General's finding that Liberal appointees gave nearly 400 million tax dollars to their own companies, which involved 186 conflicts of interest. That is nearly $400 million wasted, or stolen tax dollars, while so many of our fellow Canadians cannot afford the cost of gas, groceries and home heating.

After nine years, Canadians are yet again reminded that the Liberal government is not worth the cost, not worth the crime and certainly not worth the corruption. SDTC was a Crown corporation fully funded by Canadian taxpayers. Every member of its board of directors, including the CEO, was appointed by the Liberal government.

When the Auditor General began her review, she found that $58 million had been awarded to 10 ineligible projects. Furthermore, an additional $334 million was linked to 186 projects for which the nine board members had conflicts of interest and failed to recuse themselves from the decision-making process. In fact, nearly 59 million dollars' worth of projects had no contribution agreements, nor were the terms of those agreements met.

The Auditor General made it abundantly clear that this failure lies squarely at the feet of the Liberal minister of industry, who failed to ensure proper oversight or governance. Instead, he turned a blind eye when it was revealed that public money was being funnelled to Liberal insiders.

We now know that the RCMP has launched an investigation into the nine directors identified by the Auditor General in the SDTC green slush fund scandal. The RCMP has also confirmed it is using some of the documents turned over by the parliamentary law clerk. However, this raises serious questions. Why is the government willing to provide only some documents while other departments have outright refused? Even more absurdly, some departments have claimed they are not even part of the government.

To give Canadians a sense of just how bizarre this situation is, here are a few departments that refused to produce documents: the Department of Justice, of all places; the Canada Revenue Agency; the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency; Global Affairs; the department of housing; the Department of National Defence; and Natural Resources Canada. The list goes on.

The question is simple: Why will these Liberal ministers not turn over the documents to the police? What is so damning in them that, while the RCMP confirms it has some documents, the Liberals and their co-conspirators refuse to hand over the rest? Canadians have a right to know what is in those documents.

The House of Commons has spoken on the matter. The Speaker has ruled that the Liberals violated a House order to turn over evidence to the police for a criminal investigation. That is pretty serious. Moreover, the decision to refuse to turn over the documents has left the House paralyzed as day after day the Speaker's ruling is not adhered to by the government.

We cannot and should not let the corruption slide. The Liberals keep saying that we should move on and look away. “There is nothing here to see”, they say. If there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that no one wants to spend their time talking about this kind of gross mismanagement and corruption.

It just plain should not have happened, but it did, and now it has become impossible for the House to focus its full attention on the needs of Canadians. We should be addressing the doubling of housing costs. We should be addressing the Liberal government's policies that have resulted in inflation and higher prices for gas and groceries. We should be addressing rising crime and chaos in our cities and rural crime outside our urban centres. We could be having a very different debate right now if the Liberals ended the cover-up and provided the evidence to the RCMP. That is all it would take to get this place focused on the priorities to which we need to return our attention.

Should we really be surprised by any of this? After all, the current Liberal government has been ethically challenged every step of the way during its years in power. It has been plagued by scandals and continues to demonstrate a culture of corruption. We only need to look back at its history.

Let us begin with the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019. In that case, the Prime Minister pressured his then justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to approve contracts for SNC-Lavalin and grant it a pardon, allowing it to bid on government contracts again. However, when she refused to comply, the Prime Minister removed her from her position.

Next there was the WE Charity scandal in 2020, in which the Liberals attempted to funnel over half a billion dollars, so this was not just a wee scandal, to their associates at the WE Charity. Fortunately this was halted, but not before it was revealed that former finance minister Bill Morneau had close ties to WE. His daughter worked for the organization, and he advocated for it without recusing himself from the decision-making process. Although the Ethics Commissioner cleared the Prime Minister, that does not erase the fact that his close family members have received nearly $500,000 from WE Charity since he took office.

Foreign interference is yet another issue where the Liberals not only turned a blind eye but also appointed two individuals with close connections to the Trudeau Foundation to investigate how the government might have benefited from such interference. It is not a surprise that the investigation went nowhere.

Then there is the ArriveCAN app scandal, in which tens of millions of dollars were funnelled into the pockets of Liberal insiders. It was later revealed that the ArriveCAN app could have been developed for around $80,000. Instead, $60 million of taxpayer money was used to enrich a couple of individuals working out of their basement.

We must not forget the issue of the Winnipeg lab documents, from 2021. The House of Commons requested and ordered the production of the documents, but the government stalled and blocked the process at every turn. It even took its own Speaker of the House to court to prevent the documents from being released. When they were finally made public this year, they revealed that two scientists involved were operatives for the People's Liberation Army in Beijing.

The documents also showed that viruses and intelligence on various vaccines were sent to China, raising serious concerns about other potential security breaches at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Liberals were so determined to keep the documents from the public that instead of complying with the House's order, they called an election in 2021, effectively breaking Parliament and halting that process as well.

Moreover, the public safety minister has been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner on two separate occasions. These violations include awarding contracts to family members through a Crown corporation and appointing his sister-in-law as interim ethics commissioner. How can the public expect him to remain impartial when family members are directly involved?

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

Electoral Reform

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

Madam Speaker, I rise virtually this evening to pursue a question that I asked in the House some months ago. It was on the occasion of a wonderful conference that took place in Ottawa, called Vote16. There are movements across this country of people who want to see the voting age lowered to 16 years old. I am going to canvass very quickly why that is because the response I received that day from the parliamentary secretary was not about the issue of why it would help make our democracy more vibrant if we were to change the voting age, as some jurisdictions have. For instance, on the occasion of the referendum in Scotland, the voting age was 16 years old.

The problem we have in Canada with voter turnout, and it is a significant problem, is that it tends to go down over the years. The voter turnout that scandalized me was in the most recent Ontario provincial election. The last one had something like 46% voter turnout, so fewer than half of the people who were able to vote actually voted. That really is a blow to democracy.

The demographic group that votes the least in our country is the group that has, if we will forgive the expression, the most skin in the game: young people. The decisions we make in the House in 2024, in this Parliament, are going to significantly affect 16-year-olds for the rest of their lives. For people my age and older, there is relatively less of a long-term impact. However, young people vote the least.

When we look at the research, one of the reasons for that is as follows: At 18 years old, many Canadian youth are away from home for the first time. They may be away at university or off trying to find a job, making their own way in the world. They end up feeling they are not sure they know enough about the community in the new place they live. It is not where they are from. That tends to reduce voter turnout.

We also know from the research that, if young people do not vote at their first opportunity at 18 years old, they are quite unlikely to start voting when they are 25, 30 or 35. We put in place patterns of nonengagement and non-involvement. We add to that the general disgust of the public at political partisan games, and we end up having a very real risk of voter turnout continuing to go down.

I imagine turning that around, which we could still do before the next election, and saying that voting is now legal at 16 years old. Sixteen-year-olds can drive and pay taxes; 16-year-olds can risk their lives in many ways, and we accept that. Why could we not allow young people to vote at 16 when they are in their home community, when they have the support of peer groups and the potential for beefed-up civics classes? I have heard from many retired schoolteachers that they feel teaching democracy in schools has gone downhill in civics classes. Of course, this is in the provincial jurisdiction.

In the time remaining, I just want to say this: Let us seize the opportunity while we have time to increase the engagement of Canadian youth in the future of our country and to ask young people to step up and start voting at 16. I think we would see a positive impact for all of us, including seniors.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the chamber to talk about the opportunities for youth engagement in our democracy, particularly voting in federal elections. I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising the important issue of Canada's voting age.

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom states, “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote”, and all citizens do eventually. The Canada Elections Act qualifies this right by adding the age requirement that citizens must be 18 years old. This is consistent with the voting age for provincial and territorial elections and most jurisdictions around the world.

The federal voting age has not always been set at 18. In 1970, it was lowered from age 21, which had been the voting age since Confederation. Since then, Parliament has often reflected on the voting age. Indeed, this very Parliament debated the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 a few years ago. While Parliament did not agree to lower the voting age, our government and the Prime Minister in particular have made very significant efforts to ensure young people continue to have a voice in our parliamentary democracy.

I would like to highlight a few of the many opportunities available to youth for engaging in democratic life at all levels of government. For example, they can become an active member of political parties, and they can join or even launch social movements on issues of importance to them, as well as advocate for public policies.

Our government recognizes that youth participation in our democracy, which is not limited to voting, makes it healthier. This is why we have taken important steps to provide youth opportunities to participate in our democracy in recent years. For example, in 2018, the government passed Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which created a voluntary register of future electors, providing Canadians between the ages of 14 to 17 who wish to vote with the option to register early with Elections Canada. If they choose to sign up early, these youth are automatically included in the National Register of Electors upon turning 18, as well as the list of electors, so they are registered to vote and will receive their voter information card. The Elections Modernization Act also facilitated the ability of Elections Canada to hire 16- and 17-year-olds to work as election officers, giving young people an opportunity to be at the front lines of Canada's electoral process.

Our youth can and do participate in our democracy and continue to make a valuable contribution in a variety of ways. At the same time, our government recognizes that it is important that we continue to support ways to encourage participation. All of us here can and should do more to encourage the turnout of all electors. We need to be an example for our youth.

In March of this year, our government introduced Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, which seeks to enhance voter participation for all electors, including youth and students—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. He will be able to finish up during his one-minute response.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that the hon. parliamentary secretary made those points. Clearly, I appreciate the changes to the Elections Act to allow 16-year-olds to pre-register. However, nothing is going to have an impact on youth voting like moving the voting age to 16.

I hear from 16-year-olds sometimes who say, “Maybe we don't know enough yet.” However, I would remind all colleagues here that we do not cut off the ability to vote based on intellectual capacities. If we happen to be in a long-term care home with dementia, we have the right to vote.

Canadian youth have a right to say what needs to be done so that the climate of the future is livable and that they have a livable world and a chance to die of old age, a right that we rarely embrace but one that our kids may be denied.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government recognizes that a healthy democracy requires youth engagement. Parliament has continued to support the current voting age of 18 for a variety of reasons. At the same time, important actions have been taken to further foster youth participation by the government and stakeholders, as well as youth-led organizations and initiatives. However, I would note that voters aged 18 to 24 continue to have much lower turnout than the national average. Our government believes more can be done to make voting easier for these electors, many of whom are post-secondary students. That is why the government's proposal to make voting on campus permanent through Bill C-65 is so important.

I want to thank Canadian youth for their continued engagement in our democratic institutions.

Emergency Preparedness

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question is very simple: How many hectares of dead pine remain standing in Jasper National Park? I ask the member to provide just the number.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been in committee talking about these issues over the last couple of weeks. Jasperites have written to me. They have sent messages to me, and they have asked us to tone down the political rhetoric on this because it is reopening old wounds. Instead of trying to estimate the number of trees that still stand in Jasper, I know there are very many trees that still stand, thankfully, as the fires in Jasper did not consume the whole park. It is an extremely large park. It did consume a third of the town, and it was a great tragedy. However, the politicization of this wildfire by the Conservatives has been disgusting. That notion is shared by Jasperites.

I would like to read from a local Jasper newspaper called the Jasper Local. The article is called “Recipe for Disaster: Misinformation and wildfire”, and it reads:

Record dryness, extreme heat, high winds, and a lightning storm. This summer in Jasper National Park, all of the ingredients of a recipe for disaster were in place.

Now, two and a half months after that disaster came to pass, another set of circumstances—misinformation, toxic politics and facts-starved social media blowhards, desperately looking to pin blame—have lined up to wreak havoc.

On July 22, 2024, after bolts of lightning ignited three sparks which blew up into fast-moving wildfires 30km south of Jasper, Initial Attack firefighting crews radioed Parks Canada Incident Command.

On top of another fire that sprang to life north of town, the news from the south wasn’t good.

“All three fires were already well into the crowns,” Parks Canada fire specialist Landon Shepherd learned....

Meanwhile, tornados were being reported all over B.C. and Alberta.

“Conditions were unprecedented,” Shepherd said.

What wasn’t unprecedented, was collaborating with his fellow wildfire specialists. And so as soon as he had a handle on the gravity of the wildfire situation, Shepherd picked up the phone and called Gord Glover.

Gord Glover isn’t a federal official. He’s not an Ottawa bureaucrat, nor a politician. Glover is an Operations Officer with Alberta Wildfire, based out of Edson.

Last year, when Edson was under threat of being impinged by fast-running wildfires south of the community, Shepherd was one of Glover’s first calls.

“They know to call us when their backs are up against the wall.... Alberta was overwhelmed,” Shepherd said.

Even so, Alberta Wildfire sent what they could. Parkland and Yellowhead Counties roared in to help. Banff showed up. Ontario was sending teams. Yukon sent ignition specialists. From B.C., Quesnel was on their way. Valemount, Tete Jaune and McBride—who were under an evacuation alert of their own—sent engines. And many private contractors—running helicopters and heavy equipment—were used.

Jasper said yes. To resources. To help. They said yes early and they said yes often. They said yes to wildland teams and they said yes to municipal departments.

“We kept saying yes,” Shepherd said.

But they didn’t say yes to everyone.

Unified Command did not immediately say yes to an independent fire fighting businesses seeking to access Jasper to perform structural protection services for a private company.

They did not say yes to a group of trucks and personnel who—while having had been deployed by the Government of Alberta—did not have prior arrangements for access.

They did not say yes to a self-dispatching team who had not signed an agreement to abide by the ICT’s rules of engagement.

And they did not say yes to a crew of mercenaries known as Arctic Fire Safety Services, the bulk of whose resources arrived the day after 350 structures burned in Jasper.

“We can’t just have rogue agents patrolling around,” Shepherd explained. “It’s too dangerous. What if they get in the way of wildfire operations we’re doing?”

Recently, those rogue agents have popped back up. And although the fires in Jasper have long been put out, the hyperbole that these hired guns are now spewing is once again putting people in harm’s way.

This week, dressed in the shiny-buttoned, double-breasted uniform of a fire chief or high-ranking officer, Arctic Fire Safety Services president Kris Liivam complained to a parliamentary committee that his crews were obstructed from doing their jobs by Jasper’s Unified Command. That testimony, lapped up like fresh milk by hungry alley cats, is being weaponized by opposition MPs and social media warriors alike.

Fanning the flames of these politically-driven comments sows division, mistrust and hard feelings amongst Canadians in general, but among Jasperites in particular. The negative rhetoric is wearing on locals, many of whom were involved in the incident, and many others who lost their homes and livelihoods to fire and desperately want fact-based answers.

Even Jasper’s Mayor, now well-known to Canadians for his diplomacy, fortitude and tact, weighed in on the scuttlebutt.

“The present atmosphere of finger pointing, blaming and misinformation—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, the hon. member's time is up as well.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Jasper wildfire investigation has proved that the Liberals were negligent in protecting Jasper. If they are so proud of their record, why can they not answer a simple question? I will ask the question again: How many hectares of dead pine are still standing in Jasper National Park?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will continue with the quote from Jasper's mayor:

The present atmosphere of finger pointing, blaming and misinformation is beyond merely an annoying distraction, it delays healing,” Richard Ireland said on Thursday, October 10. “It introduces fresh wounds at a time when we need recovery and unity.

Facts matter. What Arctic Fire Safety Services have said about their involvement in the Jasper Wildfire Complex is not accurate.

I would add as an addendum, that was the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa's witness at that committee meeting. The article continues:

Unified Command should not have to explain why they were not prepared to upend their established processes of deploying resources safely and effectively because some cowboys with big trucks wanted to act on “instinct.”

Extreme atmospheric conditions and instability, combined with unprecedented dry fuel conditions, meant that Jasper wildfires were not in a fair fight on July 22.

But the people authorized to be involved in the battle gave it everything they had.

Jasper has taken some big punches, but if we are going to get up from the mat, we first need to know that we are in each other's corner.

The final line in this article is:

But if we can put politics aside and filter out good information from bad, Jasper—the town and the park—has all the right ingredients to make its rebuild unprecedented, too.

I wish the Conservatives would get on board.

Carbon Pricing

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I asked a question during question period about the possibility of the Prime Minister's calling a carbon tax election. This was an important question for me and it was based on conversations that I had with many people in my home riding of Langley over the summer months, people who are deeply concerned about the ever-rising cost of living. We hear the Minister of Finance saying that we should be celebrating that inflation is coming down to the Bank of Canada's target of around 2%, but I am saying that celebrations might be a bit premature and certainly offensive to people who are struggling to put food on the table.

A recently retired couple explained it to me like this. Groceries that cost $100 when they first retired four years ago, today are costing $175 for the same food and that is week after week. Even though inflation might be down, the price of groceries is still sky high. Government-induced inflation is a tax on people on fixed income. Add to that the Liberals' ever-increasing carbon tax, which drives up the cost of everything, including groceries, and is driving a record number of people to food banks.

The Liberals say, yes, they realize that the carbon tax is going up and they realize it is inflationary, but that taxpayers are better off with this carbon tax because taxpayers get some of that money back. In support of that audacious claim, the Liberals highlight the fiscal-impact-only table of the recent Parliamentary Budget Officer report, while conveniently ignoring that same report's broader economic analysis saying that the carbon tax deals a sharp blow to our national economy and to our per capita income. In other words, we are all poorer, on account of the carbon tax and that is why my question was timely and important. Many Canadians feel that. They know it when they are out buying groceries.

I will acknowledge that we have been asking variations of that question for some time and perhaps the minister, or the government House leader who answered the question, was tired of the repetition, but I asked the question in good faith. It was important for my constituents. It was important for me. That is why it was so disappointing to receive a flippant answer to my question about the carbon tax from the government House leader.

She said something to the effect, “Oh, the House has lost confidence in the Leader of the Opposition.” Well, she knows the rules as well as everybody and that it is the Prime Minister's job to earn the confidence of the House and it is the opposition's job to test that confidence from time to time when it is appropriate to do so. We have been doing that very effectively since Parliament resumed again after the summer break. We have posed several appropriately placed non-confidence votes. Unfortunately, with the ongoing support of the NDP, the government still stands to continue wreaking economic havoc on our people.

The minister knows how this all works and maybe she is anticipating already what it is going to feel like to be on this side of the House. She is going to have her chance soon enough, but for now, we are asking the questions and I am hoping for a more serious answer to a legitimate question. Why is the Prime Minister afraid of a carbon tax election? Why not let Canadians decide?

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is from Langley—Aldergrove. That constituency is in British Columbia. British Columbia does not utilize the federal backstop system, so there is no federal carbon tax, as he calls it, in British Columbia. Every time he stands up in the House and says that he wants a carbon tax election for his constituents in British Columbia, in Langley—Aldergrove, what he is doing is continuing to try to impress upon his constituents that the federal carbon tax even applies in his constituency, but it does not.

Either he is unaware of that fact or he is intentionally trying to mislead his constituents; I do not know which one it is. I will not hazard to guess or even hazard to suggest that he is trying to intentionally mislead his constituents into thinking that a federal carbon tax is applied to any amount of fuel in British Columbia, because it simply is not and never has been.

We have had the conversation before and have repeated it enough times that every member of the House knows that the federal carbon tax does not apply in British Columbia. If he would like to talk about carbon pricing, there was just a provincial election in British Columbia. He can talk to the future premier of British Columbia about carbon pricing, because British Columbia is a leader on carbon pricing. It always has been.

In fact, it was a government in which many of the member's colleagues served that brought in this country's first-ever carbon pricing program, which is a provincial one. It has had its own system since 2008, more than 10 years before the Government of Canada implemented carbon pricing across the country. One of the reasons we did it across the country is that it was working. The emissions per capita were dropping in British Columbia. British Columbia's economy continued to grow as now Canada's emissions have gone down and Canada's economy continues to grow.

If the member opposite would like to talk about carbon pricing, then what we should also talk about is the cost of climate change itself. The Insurance Bureau of Canada reports that, for a second year in a row, Canada exceeded $7 billion in insured damage from severe weather and events linked to climate change. It is a scientific fact that climate change increases the severity and frequency of extreme weather events and many of those have affected my colleague's riding. Certainly his province, even just during the provincial election, received an extreme amount of precipitation in a very short period of time, constituting extreme weather.

Without significant additional actions to reduce emissions, these costs are projected to balloon to $35 billion in 2030 and to between $80 billion and $103 billion in 2055. The cost of inaction is far too great to bear. What we need to do is join countries like those in Europe; states like California, New York and New Jersey; and countries around the world that are determined to lower their emissions. The Conservatives are continually demonstrating not just their climate denial but also the fact that they are literally in the pockets of big oil and gas. It is as if their statements in the House were written by oil and gas lobbyists.

On the other hand, our government is taking serious and ambitious climate action. It includes using all of the tools in our tool box, which includes putting a price on pollution, and it also includes an industrial pricing system, widely recognized as the most cost-effective way of combatting climate change. Just today, industry called the provinces to work together to strengthen the industrial price on pollution.

Once again, if my colleague from British Columbia would like to talk about carbon pricing in Canada, that is great. If he would like it removed in British Columbia, he needs to talk to provincial politicians because there is no carbon tax in British Columbia from the federal government.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for highlighting the fact that there has been a provincial election recently in British Columbia. He might not be aware that both parties said in their electioneering that if the federal government drops the carbon tax, they will too. There are different variations of it but, effectively, they are responding to calls from their constituents who do not like the federal carbon tax.

The provincial carbon tax arguably was accepted by most British Columbians, but the federal carbon tax backstop has been driving that tax to a level that is inflationary and that is unacceptable to British Columbians. Yes, I do know what I am talking about, and I also want to highlight the 81% increase in food bank usage in British Columbia. If the Liberals are so confident that their policies are good, why not call the carbon tax election?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is simply astonishing. The member just did it again. He suggested that there is a federal carbon tax in British Columbia. He said the provincial price on pollution in B.C., the provincial carbon tax, was widely regarded as a good measure, but then he said the federal one was driving up inflation. They are very similar. One cannot be good and effective while the other drives up inflation. What we have seen is a decline in inflation. Inflation is at 1.6%. We saw a 0.5% cut in interest rates just this week.

As the carbon tax has gone up in Canada, as it does every year, year after year, the Canada carbon rebate has also gone up. What we have seen is that eight out of 10 families get more money back through the Canada carbon rebate than they pay in the climate action incentive or the price on pollution. I would just remind Canadians and British Columbians that that does not apply in British Columbia because British Columbia has been pricing carbon for over a decade.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now 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 7:09 p.m.)