Debates of March 21st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Election

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a few times in the House, in response to comments colleagues across the way have made vis-à-vis the relationship between a price on pollution and food prices, I have raised that we have very clear data, including from the OECD, that tells us that Canada has the second-lowest inflation rate for food prices in the G7. That is on par with the United States, a jurisdiction that does not have a price on pollution.

I want to save my colleague, who I know will come back and say, “Well, Mr. Speaker, we don't have data because the Liberals don't track it”, some trouble, so I will get ahead of that a little bit and say that, actually, there is no data because there is no evidence to support the assertion that he and his colleagues have made in relation to food price increases and a price on pollution.

I wonder whether the member could comment on why it is that OECD data is suggesting that his position is contrary to ours.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when my constituents go to the grocery store, they see a massive increase in the price of groceries. I think it is common sense that when we raise the price of gasoline and diesel, it affects everything that moves in the country. We do not have the ability to grow locally everything that people buy in a grocery store, so this stuff is moving thousands of kilometres many times, and there is a cost that goes through the entire supply chain.

Therefore I do not think it is accurate. The agriculture and agri-food committee has been studying this very extensively, and it has heard from numerous witnesses who have indicated that the carbon tax, in fact, does have a negative impact on the cost of food. By that I mean it drives the price up. We stand by that, as do the witnesses who have appeared at the agri-food committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague. I travel back and forth with him quite often to B.C. However, I would remind him of a few facts that he kind of glossed over during his speech.

The food bank lineups doubled under the Harper regime and have doubled again under the Liberals, absolutely, which is why the NDP has been fighting for more affordability measures for Canadians. The price of housing doubled under the Harper regime and doubled again under the Liberals. The Conservatives are responsible for 50% of the crisis and even more than that, because 800,000 affordable housing unit were lost, converted into high-priced condos, under the Conservatives. Also, the reality is that food price gouging was encouraged under the Harper regime, and the Conservatives have not said a word in the House of Commons about the food price gouging we have seen from the corporate food chains and their CEOs.

The member did correctly identify, finally, and it is good to have a Conservative admit, that there is a different approach on the price on pollution in British Columbia, Quebec and the Northwest Territories. I appreciate that he actually mentioned that. However, he did not mention the fact that in B.C. it came under Gordon Campbell, the B.C. Liberal-Conservative government, which was supported by him and by other Conservatives up until very recently. The B.C. Liberals were their party of choice. Will the member admit that the B.C. Liberals and Gordon Campbell put the price on pollution into effect?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, they put it into effect, and it did not work. It has not worked under the B.C. Liberals, and it has not worked under the B.C. NDP.

To hear the member criticize the Liberal government on anything is, to me, hilarious, because he has supported it every step of the way. Every budget measure it has made on housing, on food pricing, on any part of it, he has been there as the most reliable partner that the Prime Minister has ever had. Therefore for him to criticize a government that he will support no matter what it does is, I think, disingenuous.

The people of British Columbia, when they have a chance, hopefully in a federal election, will be sending a lot more Conservative members of Parliament here to fight for them, to fight for lower prices, and to bring the cost of living down so that they can afford to feed their family, put a roof over their head and drive their car to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope on his excellent speech today. He has once again demonstrated how good Conservatives are at voicing the concerns of people across the country here in the House. My colleague just conveyed the concerns of people way over on the other side of the country, in British Columbia. I want to thank him for that.

I think it is worth taking a few moments today to point out that we are here to debate a motion of non-confidence. What does that mean? Simply put, if the government does not win the vote, it has to call an election.

The motion reads as follows:

That the House declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and his costly government for increasing the carbon tax 23 % on April 1, as part of his plan to quadruple the tax....

Today, we find ourselves in a situation where the future of the government is in the hands of the opposition parties. We know the Liberal members will vote against our motion, even though some of them would rather not. There is a party line, and they will toe it.

Coincidentally, another party exists within the same party. Together, they are called the NDP-Liberal coalition. It would come as quite a surprise if the NDP decided to stand by its values and defeat this government, which it heavily criticizes every day. It claims that it is keeping the Liberals in power to make gains that it achieves by coercing and manipulating the government. Knowing that the government is being manipulated by another party should be one more reason for us to want to defeat it.

Then there is the Bloc Québécois, which voices its many recriminations against the Liberal government day after day. It could vote in step with the wishes of the majority of Quebeckers. The majority of Quebeckers want a change of government. Most Quebeckers want the Prime Minister to go. This would give the Bloc Québécois an opportunity to fill the role it has claimed for itself all along as the representative of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. Will it vote to defeat this Liberal government tonight? We should not get our hopes up too high. Based on what I heard today, the Bloc Québécois is going to rush to defend the Liberal government and the Prime Minister once again.

Why does it feel like we are dealing with a majority government when it is actually a minority government? It is important to mention this for anyone who may be watching us right now. This minority government should not be so self-assured and arrogant as to impose its inflationary spending, for these decisions are creating chaos across the country, particularly in terms of the cost of housing, inflation and the cost of food. Normally, all these decisions should have led the opposition parties to say that enough is enough and that they wanted to put an end to this government. This is a minority government, and there is no reason to keep it in power.

Unfortunately, not everyone is keen to call an election and change the government. In fact, in a La Presse article, the leader of the Bloc Québécois proudly said, “If the next election is two years away, that doesn't bother me at all. It gives us time to properly identify, define and share information about our opponents.” He also said that Bloc Québécois members have been telling Liberal ministers that they are in no rush to head into an election campaign.

If this Prime Minister and his government hang on for another two years, it is also because of the support they are getting from the Bloc Québécois, which is very comfortable with all the consequences, of which there are many.

The Conservatives have a common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Why do we want to cut taxes? Let me talk about agriculture, for one. The Minister of Agriculture bragged about the sector's resilience, with continued growth in farm income. While he was saying that, there were 400 farmers and their families in the Lower St. Lawrence who were making a heartfelt plea and talking about their financial distress.

Martin Caron, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, said that the annual net income for farmers in Quebec would be close to zero in 2024. It is unacceptable for people who work so hard, who get up before the sun rises and go to bed after everyone else, to have zero net income.

A week after the demonstration in the Lower St. Lawrence, farmers descended on the streets of Quebec City and the north shore to express their frustration. People are not taking it anymore. Why? The input costs for farmers have gone up because the carbon tax has a direct impact on the cost of inputs that these farmers have to buy to grow their crops. The carbon tax has a direct impact on farmers and growers who produce food across Canada. It has a direct impact on the people who process this food because they have to pay the carbon tax. It has a direct impact on truck drivers who transport the food and deliver it to Quebec. When we look at the list of all the taxes that farmers, processors and truck drivers have to pay before the food arrives in Quebec, it is not surprising that the cost of food in Quebec has gone up.

Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase this tax, which is why, yesterday, it voted against our motion to cancel the carbon tax hike set for April 1. That is no April Fool's joke. That is the date the government chose to increase the carbon tax by 23%.

We need to build housing. Has anyone not heard about the current nationwide housing crisis? There is a housing crisis in Quebec, too. When the common-sense Conservatives asked the minister about his housing accelerator fund, he admitted that not a single housing unit had been built as a result of that fund, even though it cost Canadian taxpayers $3.15 billion.

I would like to talk about a Montreal couple, Martin and Marie-Hélène, who are pandemic borrowers. They renewed their mortgage in 2020 at a very low 2% rate and will have to renew in 2025 at a much higher rate. When asked whether they have figured out how much more it is going to cost them, Martin immediately said he is just not ready to calculate how much more it will cost him every month. He knows full well that he may have trouble paying the bill.

When it comes to taxes and housing, the Bloc Québécois has clearly chosen to support the Liberals. Why?

We are going to fix the budget. As everyone knows, this government's inflationary spending has contributed to rising interest rates. That has made housing and food more expensive, and people cannot make ends meet. Unfortunately, the $20 billion in additional discretionary spending introduced by the minister in the last budget update received full support form the Bloc Québécois. In fact, 100% of that discretionary spending was supported by the Bloc Québécois.

Finally, everyone knows that crime levels across the country are going from bad to worse. Just think about car thefts, this government's lax policies and its willingness to allow dangerous repeat criminals to serve their sentences at home rather than in prison. This has created an extremely chaotic situation across the country. We want to fix it. Unfortunately, these lax policies that allow house arrest instead of jail time have also been supported by the Bloc Québécois.

I invite the Bloc Québécois to support this motion this evening in order to truly represent the interests of the majority of Quebeckers who no longer want this government. There is a way to do this. Let us set ideological squabbles aside and focus on the practical. If we want to get rid of this government, then we have to vote for the Conservatives' common-sense motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague, but let us set the record straight.

First, we saw the lineups at food banks double in size. Under the Harper regime, it was awful. We can criticize the Liberals, but the Conservatives were just as bad. And on top of that, the cost of housing also doubled under the Conservatives.

The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals for things the Conservatives did, and the Liberals are criticizing the Conservatives for the same things they did. It is really just the NDP that is being sensible by introducing a variety of policies, including dental care, pharmacare and funding for housing.

I know that my colleague knows full well that in Quebec, there is a price on pollution that is different, just like in British Columbia, where the price on pollution is not regulated by the federal government.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The cost of food has gone up because of some CEOs. Why are the Conservatives not speaking out against these profit-boosting price increases?

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

Mr. Speaker, that just shows how out of touch the NDP are with the reality facing Canadians.

While I talk about food banks and mention that two million Canadians a month use them, or that food bank use in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable increased by 40% to 50% this year, all the NDP can do is live in the past and say that things are the same they always were.

As Conservatives, we are forward-looking. We are looking for clear and practical solutions to give Canadians back the country they knew before this Liberal government. Things were not like that before the Liberals, and will not be like that after them, in other words, soon.

Once again the NDP is going to support the Liberals. For all that the New Democrats criticize this government, they always end up voting for it. As far as I can tell, the NDP and the Liberals are pretty much the same party.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Regarding the alternative facts that he often cites—instead of repeating ideas written by others, that criticize without offering solutions or that disregard the separation of powers—I would like to know whether they are deceptive, or a distortion of the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really like my colleague, but sometimes he is hard to follow. I do not really understand what he was trying to get at with that question.

All I know is that, on the one hand, the Bloc Québécois claims to defend the interests of Quebeckers. The reality on the ground, however, is that Quebeckers are paying twice as much for housing, they are paying a lot more for groceries and they are left with less and less from each paycheque.

There is a quick and simple way to change the situation, which would be to change the government that is responsible for all this. The Bloc Québécois will probably support the Liberals in this evening's vote on the non-confidence motion.

However, that is the reality, those are the facts, and that is what people are experiencing every day. I hope my colleague will have a better grasp of what he is trying to ask next time, so we can understand what he is getting at.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, of the last two questions we are talking about, one was from a B.C. MP. One of the food staples I get from British Columbia is apples, and I am sure many people from Quebec do too. The crop of apples that would have been grown in B.C. and shipped across—

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

On a point of order, the member knows Nova Scotia has better apples.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has the floor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I love those apples. On those apples from B.C. that get shipped all the way over to Quebec, the carbon tax is paid. It is driving the price of those apples up. As an example from my province, I am sure there is some wheat that goes into loaves of bread or bagels in Montreal, and it is coming from Saskatchewan. It has a carbon tax that, when it is jacked up by 23%, is only going to jack up the price of breads and apples in those two examples.

Has the member heard of other constituents who are having issues covering those increased food costs?

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

It is rare that I have to do this in the House, but I have to say that the apples that are grown in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable are very good, and I think that I will buy apples from Mégantic—L'Érable before I buy apples from my colleague's riding.

We have seen it. It is obvious. Food prices have increased, and the carbon tax has a direct impact on the price of food that is imported to Quebec from other parts of Canada. We can put a stop to that by axing the tax, fixing the budget, building the homes and stopping the crime.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in the House. I will be splitting my time with the parliamentary secretary to the health minister, the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre. He has been a dear friend for many years, I would say.

Before I begin to speak to the heart of the matter, which is the CPC opposition day motion, as this may be my last opportunity to speak before the constituency week break, I would like to wish all my residents a happy Easter. Of course, Passover is also coming. Ramadan mubarak to all the residents of the city of Vaughan in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Buona Pasqua a tutti to those back home. I look forward to going to church the night before Palm Sunday, then for Easter, of course. Good Friday marks the most holiest of days in the Catholic calendar.

I would also like to say, before I go to the comments, that there are some rumours in the newspapers that the city of Vaughan will be getting a medical school, that it is potentially with the forthcoming provincial budget. I hope to see that come to fruition in the city of Vaughan. We have the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital, which is a $2-billion investment. We are also getting a community centre, along with the $700-million Highway 427, a $2.5-billion hospital and a subway to our city. I get to represent the most generous and entrepreneurial residents, I would argue, in all of Canada, just as members would argue the same for their ridings.

We are here to talk about the economy and the environment because we know that, in the world we are living in, they go hand in hand. We cannot have a strong economy without having a strong environmental policy. It is almost like the commercial a few years ago, to date many of us, that asked, “Where's the beef?” Our government has put in place a very robust environmental plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to transition to a green economy, and to build a strong and inclusive economy. Why did we do that? It is because that is where the world and private capital are going. That is where we are taking our country, focusing on providing a better and brighter future for families across Canada and in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I know my kids are depending on it, much like all our kids are depending on it in this most honourable House.

We know that our price on pollution returns more money in the rebate to eight out of 10 families in Canada on average in all our ridings. We know that this price on pollution will account for approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions going into 2030. Those are the facts. We know that the mechanism that has been put in place is one that economists across the board, including myself, as an economist, prefer to undertake.

I would ask the members of the party opposite where their plan is, where their beef is, because they need a strong environmental policy to have a strong economy. That is why we are seeing multi-billion investments in the Canadian auto sector, whether it is Stellantis, Volkswagen, Northvolt, LG, or any of the companies in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. They are investing in Canada because, as we like to say in economist talk, we have a comparative advantage. We have a very clean electrical grid. About 84% of the electricity generated in Canada is clean. We have been moving off of coal for many years, and we will continue to do so. Again, we need a plan.

Our environmental plan builds upon many economic policies that we have put in place to, yes, build a stronger, more inclusive economy, but also strengthen and expand our social safety net. The Canada child benefit, which is delivered monthly, is tax-free and provides almost $30 billion a year annually to families. It has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The Canada workers benefit is another measure that I love and argued for, and one of the reasons I entered politics, as it lifts up hard-working Canadians, who are really trying to get ahead and get a hand up. It will be there for them. We have expanded it three times.

With respect to the Canada dental care program, if there is one thing I have heard from my seniors since I have been in office for eight years, is that they need help on the dental side. We have come up with a means-tested program, run by Sun Life, which will help the over 20,000 seniors in my riding. To date, over 1.5 million seniors have been approved. That is another measure for affordability.

On the economic front, when we think about the carbon pricing model, we know it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions, help Canadians, move our economy forward, and green our environment and our economy. The opposite side has not offered any plan. Again, I would go to the reference of the commercial, “Where's the beef?” There is no beef.

We need to offer Canadians a plan to take our economy forward, to strengthen our families and communities, and that is what we continue to do. On the other side, we hear platitudes and half-truths, unfortunately. We need to make sure we make life more affordable for Canadians and, again, we grow our economy.

On Tuesday, it was great to see the Canada inflation report from Statistics Canada. We have gone below 3%. There are big drops on cellular prices, on Internet. There are drops on food prices. All the while, we have these economic policies and environmental policies that continue to reduce GHG emissions and move our economy forward.

I am a pro-business individual. In this honourable chamber, we know that businesses need certainty. They do not need slogans. Businesses need certainty. Again, they do not need slogans.

For those auto companies investing in Canada for the EV transition, and the folks in the nuclear industry, where we have seen a renaissance in nuclear power with a $50-million investment and a partnership with Romania to build CANDU reactors there, we need to ensure that businesses have stability and certainty in the policies we put forward.

That is important. It is highly irresponsible for the other side, who I would say are auditioning for something but not really, who should be responsible but are not, to introduce policy uncertainty in the environment we are in. We know the Inflation Reduction Act in the States has propelled the United States. We know Europe is investing in hydrogen. That reminds me, earlier this week, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources was in Germany, something I like to see and was so glad to hear, to announce that Canada and Germany have a hydrogen accord, a further buildup of Canadian energy that would go to Europe to green their economy, and to move them off any sort of dependency on the dictatorship of the tyrannical regime of Putin. That is something really important.

When I see the opposite side not offering a plan, it is so disappointing. It borders a little on irresponsibility and is a cowering from responsibility. Maybe that is too strong of a word, but they are ducking from their responsibilities to Canadians. We have just had one of the warmest winters on record, I believe. Here in Ottawa and in Toronto, there was no snow, and it was not very cold. Climate change is real. We need to deal with it. It would be irresponsible for any parliamentarian to not offer a plan to Canadians.

We know that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are better off, and that is what we need to focus on, moving Canada ahead, and creating a brighter future for our kids and our families.

With that, I think my time is up, and I look forward to questions and comments from hon. members on the other side.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the member on many of the falsehoods he stated, and not even with my own facts. The Prime Minister's own hand-picked Parliamentary Budget Officer said that more Canadians are worse off because of this carbon tax scam, and there is more and more proof. An average Alberta family will pay $2,900, but the rebate is only $2,000. In Ontario, where the member is from, an average family will pay $1,600 in this carbon tax scam and will only get $1,000 back. The PBO has debunked everything the member is saying, and I will remind the Liberals that it has not helped emissions come down.

When 70% of Canadians and premiers, including the premier in the Liberal leader's province and a Liberal premier in Atlantic Canada, have asked the government to spike the hike because families cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves, why is the Liberals' radical ideology about this carbon tax more important than those 70% of Canadians who are asking the government to spike the hike? Why do they not let Canadians decide, in a carbon tax election, whether they want to keep this carbon tax scam or scrap the Prime Minister and go with a common-sense Conservative plan?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I consider the member for Calgary Forest Lawn a friend, and I understand where he is coming from, but I humbly disagree with him, of course. In the province of Ontario, an average family of four will receive $1,120. The rural top-up will be 20%. From the Statistics Canada material that I have seen, and from what I have heard from some fellow economists, on average, that would ensure that eight out of 10 families will be better off in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Canada.

We understand that we need to put in place effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while we build a strong and inclusive economy. As many individuals would state, putting a price on pollution is really the most effective way of doing it and will account for about one-third of the emissions reductions by 2030.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, and I wonder if he is as confused as I am about this Conservative motion calling for a carbon tax election. Clearly, the carbon tax is not popular with a lot of Canadians, but they recognize that it is a better idea than doing nothing about climate change.

In the last three elections, a majority of Canadians voted for parties that supported the tax. If we have a carbon tax election, why do the Conservatives think Canadians would suddenly change their minds and vote for a party that opposes doing something about climate change?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, putting a price on pollution is the right thing to do. There are obviously different policy measures and instruments that we could put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reason we have a price on pollution is that it is a federal backstop. When some provinces, I would argue, abdicate their responsibility for a cleaner environment and a stronger economy, that is when the federal backstop kicks in. The Supreme Court has ruled that is a correct method to proceed.

I agree with the hon. member from British Columbia that we have had three elections where the price on pollution was part of the ballot for Canadians, and Canadians overwhelmingly chose a healthier environment and a stronger economy.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated what the member had to say. I find it really interesting. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney was lying in state. His body has now been moved to Montreal, and the funeral will take place on Saturday. This was a leader during a time when Progressive Conservatives existed, when people recognized the importance of trade, fiscally responsible policies and the need to take action on the environment.

I remember being in elementary school and hearing there was a hole in the ozone layer. People around me were saying I did not need to worry about what to do in the future because we would probably not have a planet, and here we are. I hear Conservatives chirping across the way. One of the members said that we should call an election, and I said that elections cost money. There was one time when the “C” in the Conservative Party stood for conservatism. Today, it stands for “cocky” and “chirping”.

Do we need to be concerned about the environment? Should we be concerned about future generations? Does the Government of Canada have a role to play, or do we just need slogans and gimmicks, which are the only things that Conservatives offer?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Waterloo for her insight. If we look at history, one U.S. president, Theodore Roosevelt, and one Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, may he rest in peace, were two of the greenest individuals to ever be president and prime minister. One was a Republican and one was a Progressive Conservative.

It is really sad to see the state of affairs the Conservative movement is in, where it cannot offer up a real plan for the environment and can only do slogans, as Conservatives are doing. That is not leadership; that is abdication of leadership.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, International Development; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion, which is an opposition day motion by the Conservative Party of Canada.

I stand here today, first and foremost, to speak as the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, the community that has given me the great honour to serve it in the House. As someone who knocks on doors often and speaks to his constituents, as many members in the House do, I can say that fighting climate change is the number one issue that I hear about when I am speaking to my constituents.

In fact, I recently sent out a mailer to all my constituents. I am sure many members received it; many of them live in my riding when they are here working on behalf of their constituents. It was a pre-budget consultation document; I like to reach out to as many constituents as possible, asking them to share their thoughts on what should be included in the upcoming budget. I got thousands of responses back, both on paper and online. We just went through and analyzed the information that we received, and the number one issue that was highlighted was climate change.

They wanted Parliament and the Government of Canada to do more to fight climate change to make sure we are reducing emissions and doing more for that. In that commentary, I did not hear issues around the price on pollution; I heard a request, need and demand to do more.

I admit that affordability was also one of the issues recognized. Better health care was another issue that was part of the feedback received. However, climate change, and fighting climate change, was the number one issue.

I am a very factual guy, and I want to discuss the issue around the price on pollution in a factual way. What we are debating right now, and Conservatives are entitled to oppose this system, is identifying that carbon is a pollutant that is causing global warming and that greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced in order to effectively fight climate change. Moreover, from an economics perspective, putting a price on pollution is the best way to help change people's behaviour and ensure people are not using products that cause pollution.

That is basically what this scheme is. It is to ensure that the way we incentivize solutions that are less carbon intensive and cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions is by making the use of fossil fuels more expensive. Therefore, we have chosen a mechanism that puts a price on pollution.

As we heard when the member for Vaughan-Woodbridge mentioned it earlier, the federal government's scheme is just a backstop. The provinces and territories are free to have their own mechanisms. In fact, someone mentioned the province of Ontario. I had the honour of serving at the provincial level when we brought in a cap and trade system in Ontario, putting a price on carbon that way.

In fact, it was the same system that exists in Quebec and in California, and we actually engaged in a carbon trading mechanism. Premier Doug Ford, who is a Conservative, got rid of that system. However, if it were in place today, there would be no price on pollution in Ontario. The provincial system would have prevailed, as is the case in Quebec and in British Columbia.

As such, this particular price on pollution mechanism exists as a backstop only for those provinces and territories where there is no price on pollution. That is point number one.

The price on pollution is in place in order to help incentivize innovation, change people's behaviour and have them move away from using more carbon-intensive or fossil fuel-intensive products. We recognize that this price on pollution will cause some hardship for those who do not have that much disposal income and that the cost of certain things will go up as a result, as the transition is being made. However, this is why the second element of this program or this scheme is really important. That is the Canada carbon rebate. At the end of the day, Canadian families and the consumer are paying the price on pollution. The rebate makes sure that the money collected goes back to Canadians, so that they are not left behind. That aspect is really important.

The Canada carbon rebate goes to 80% of Canadian families, and in my province of Ontario, a family of four receives $1,120 per year. That is about $280 every quarter that they are receiving in order to offset the cost that they may be paying in the price on pollution.

We have thought through both of those elements in terms of how we can effectively reduce emissions by making pollutants, such as carbon, more expensive and, at the same time, making sure that the monies collected are then given back to Canadian consumers and Canadian families. Thus, they are not left behind and are able to make ends meet.

From a public policy perspective, I think we all recognize the fact that climate change is real. However, in order for us to have a strong economy, meet the international obligations that we are part of through the Kyoto protocol and work with other countries that are also taking action on climate change, every political party that wants to govern needs to have a credible plan to deal with this.

What I find baffling in this debate is that we only hear slogans from those in the Conservative Party. There is nothing about a plan; they have just created a tag line and a bumper sticker. Perhaps they are entitled to do that, but before they ask for another election, they need to be able to come with a credible plan or acknowledge the fact, which is perhaps what they believe, that climate change is something they do not want to address. There will be another election. Welcome to democracy, Mr. Speaker; thankfully, that is a given. However, whatever the case, let us hear it; Conservatives should tell us their views on climate change.

I can tell members that, in speaking to my constituents in Ottawa Centre, inaction is not a plan. They want real, concrete action by their government in order to address climate change. They do not want just a plan on the back of a napkin, but a credible plan that would actually make a difference.

However, as I think the member for Waterloo said, this is not a new idea. Mr. Mulroney has been mentioned a few times; he championed the Montreal Protocol, which resulted in stopping the depletion of the ozone layer. Aside from that, one of his biggest legacies was to put an end to acid rain, which was caused in the eastern part of the country by sulphur dioxide emissions. Yes, it was a cap and trade system. However, what was the cap and trade? It was a price put on sulphur to make it more expensive to emit sulphur dioxide, which resulted in the elimination of acid rain.

The point is, we can look at different kinds of mechanisms, and that is what we are trying to do. However, we need to hear a credible plan from the Conservatives. This is a plan that is making an impact, and we are starting to see a reduction in emissions in Canada because of our action.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleagues are talking a lot today about the legacy of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. We are all proud of his record as one of the most environmentally friendly leaders in the western world, but they keep talking about what he achieved in terms of addressing the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain. These were incredible successes for a Conservative prime minister.

My colleague talked about cap and trade, but it was a cap and trade on the emitters. I would ask him: When Prime Minister Mulroney was the prime minister, how high was the carbon tax to resolve the ozone layer and the acid rain? What was the cost of the carbon tax?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member just made my point, because cap and trade is actually a price on pollution. That is exactly the point.

In the case of Quebec, they do have a cap and trade system. In the case of Ontario, until 2018, we introduced a plan that was a cap and trade system. The mechanism is the same, which is to put a price on pollution. He could speak to any economist; in fact the economists were probably advising the member and telling him that it is the most efficient way, the most effective way to actually reduce the use of a pollutant.

They need to come up with a credible plan and not campaign on slogans. It is not going to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives are constantly raising the costs, my question is whether the hon. members have had the same experience I have had.

I have had constituents come to me and say that they have been quoted a 100% increase in their fire insurance. They have come to me and said that they cannot get flood insurance and that the insurance companies say it is because of climate change.

While we talk about the carbon tax as increasing costs, I find that my constituents are facing far higher costs as a result of climate change than anything that is going on with the carbon tax. Of course, there is no rebate when insurance premiums go up by 100% or people cannot get flood insurance at all.