Debates of April 9th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an issue that I am sure most Canadians will find the Conservative Party is in want of, which is an actual idea to deal with the price on pollution or the environment. The Conservatives, in fact, are like a fish out of water at times, flopping all over the place. It is hard to actually pin them down. I do not say that lightly.

I would like to convey this for my Conservative friends across the way. Let us look back to 2015, when countries around the world went to Paris. One consensus from the Paris conference was that the climate mattered, that there were initiatives that governments around the world should take to deal with the climate crisis.

Canada was one of those countries to make that decision to bring in a carbon tax, carbon rebate process to support what had come out of the Paris conference. It was meant to be used as a national backstop.

For example, the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec do not have the carbon tax, carbon rebate policy. We have seen some provinces back away from the program they had in favour of the national price on pollution or the carbon rebate and carbon tax. They did that, at least in good part, because they recognized the value of the national program. However, nothing prevents a province from going on its own and developing what the world is demanding, recognizing that we should be concerned about our environment. The price on pollution is a way to deal with that.

The Conservatives have agreed with that. Let us look at Stephen Harper's policy platform in 2008. Nineteen members of Parliament in the Conservative caucus today supported that. The iconic leader who they have pictures of supported a price on pollution.

Let us fast forward. The last leader the Conservatives, the one the current leader replaced, Erin O'Toole, had a price on pollution as a part of his election platform, and 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election went around the country with that election platform, making it very clear there should be a price on pollution.

There was nothing unique about that. Every political party inside this chamber, the Greens, the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals and, at the time, the Conservatives, campaigned on a price on pollution.

The Conservative Party, with its new shiny leader, talks about axing the tax. The reality is that Conservatives are axing the facts. That is what they are really doing. That is why I challenge the Conservatives, and it is not the first time.

Is there a Conservative member of Parliament who is brave enough or has the courage to have that debate? I would love to have a debate with any Conservative member of Parliament, whether it is at a public school in Ottawa or in Winnipeg. I look forward to one Conservative member of Parliament standing up today and saying that he or she will have that debate. Those members are going to have a tough time getting their leader to agree to have that public debate. They do not want the facts. They do not want people to understand what the Conservative agenda really is on the issue, and that should be of great concern.

When the leader of the Conservative Party says that they want to axe the tax, it is so misleading. The Conservative members of Parliament know that.

The net disposable income of 80% of the residents in Winnipeg North will go down as a direct result of this bumper-sticker policy that the Conservatives are trying to sell Canadians through deception and misinformation, and they do that consistently. We have to wonder where they get this stuff.

An interesting article came out, and I would like to bring the attention of members to it because it is really important for us to recognize, saying that the past week they got an extremely revealing look behind the curtains of the leader of the Conservative Party's baloney factory; that first of all, he was accepting major donations from oil sands executives, which is interesting to hear, who they knew were fighting hard against the rules and regulations to clean up their operations; but second, he was outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting.

Let us understand who Mash consulting is. Often I talk about the leader of the Conservative Party and his links to MAGA conservativism, the far right. Brian Mulroney said how they had amputated the progressive side of the Conservative Party. Kim Campbell is even harsher in her comments compared to Joe Clark, who says that the Conservative Party has left the progressive nature of its political heritage.

Let me read right from it. It states that he is outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting. That is where the Conservatives are going. It is a firm that has close ties to the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan, but also to companies like Shell and I understand, Canada Proud.

Canadians should be concerned about what they see from today's Conservative Party, which has abandoned any sort of progressive heritage. It is not just me saying this; former Progressive Conservative prime ministers are saying what I am conveying here today.

The Conservative Party reality is far, far right. It is on the extreme. The Conservatives are more concerned about catering to the People's Party's vote than they are to good, sound public policy. Without any hesitation whatsoever, that is why I have no problem in challenging members of the Conservative Party to go to a public school in Ottawa or Winnipeg. I would love the opportunity to see a person from the media and a classroom full of students, and see how the Conservatives justify their irresponsible policy stand on the issue of a price on pollution. If they were to take me up on it, and I suspect they will not, it would be somewhat of an eye opener.

When the Conservatives say that the polls tell them they are right, they have been very successful in deceiving Canadians when it comes to the whole “axe the tax” campaign. They drop completely the rebate portion that increases the disposable incomes of 80% or more of Canadians and at the same time provides an incentive to decrease the use of fossil fuels. However, the Conservatives have no problem doing that. We saw that today when the leader of the Conservative Party stood and gave all sorts of false information.

I follow immigration very closely. I was the immigration critic and I can say that the Harper years were not good years for immigration, yet he thinks that those were the best years in Canadian history. He was talking about the jobs. In comparison with Stephen Harper's record, we have well over two million new jobs created in eight years compared to just a million jobs in 10 years. It is misinformation. The Conservatives are misleading constantly in social media and in statements in the House.

That is the Conservative Party today, that is the sort of behaviour. I would suggest that the Conservatives are not going to fool Canadians. When the time is here, Canadians will know, and the Conservatives will never be put into a government situation.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my friend from Manitoba, but if we look at what the business of supply is today, it is the opportunity to let the provinces make their cases about the strategies they have in place to counter excess carbon emissions. An NDP member earlier talked about toxic drug supply and getting the premiers together to speak about that and how significant and how important it was.

I wonder if the member could come back to the actual topic of the day and talk about the significance of having the premiers get together to talk about issues of national importance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the topic of the day is the price on pollution, the carbon rebate and the carbon tax. I can tell the member opposite that our Prime Minister has had more meetings with the premiers than Stephen Harper ever had. I can guarantee that fact.

That member is from the province of Alberta. On April 1, Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, increased the gas tax by four cents a litre, which is more than the price on pollution, which was three cents a litre. I am wondering if the Alberta Conservative caucus has told the Premier of Alberta about the damage she is causing to Albertans. I suspect not, because the Conservative Party today is so partisan that it turns a blind eye to anything that comes from the Conservative right to the detriment of Canadians.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to have some clarity on this. The member said that he would challenge any of the 118 Conservatives on the opposite side to a public debate in any forum in front of any audience, either back home or in Ottawa. Does that include the Leader of the Opposition?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly clear, if any Conservative member, including the leader of the Conservative Party has the courage to debate and talk about this issue of the carbon tax and the carbon rebate, I would welcome the opportunity in any public school in Ottawa or in Winnipeg. If it were the leader of the Conservative Party and he had the courage to take me up on it, I would extend it to any public school in the country. However, I am sorry to tell members not to hold their breath, because the last thing the Conservatives want is to have an intelligent discussion on an issue that is so vitally important, and that is our environment and the carbon rebate.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a terrible reality when so many Albertans and Canadians across the country are facing the affordability crisis. They cannot afford homes, or gas or food. What we have is as a solution from the Conservative Party to axe the carbon tax. That may sound really good for a lot of Canadians, but the reality is that it is hypocrisy. We have a premier in Alberta who raises the gas tax by four cents and has no rebate. On top of that, we have the Liberals and their carbon tax, which is three cents. The reality of all of this is that gas went up 20¢. The remainder of that, over 11¢, is pure profit for those like “Richie“ Rich Kruger, who continue to go off and “burn, baby, burn”, while we talk and debate about the three cents from the Liberals.

We have to get serious in the House. We are in a climate crisis and we are in an affordability crisis, and the solutions of the Conservatives are hypocritical ones.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I cannot make this stuff up. We actually have Conservative members of Parliament going around the province of Alberta saying that they want to axe the tax. It was going to be a three-cents-a-litre increase on gas on April 1. They were going around the province saying they had to get rid of it. Their own Conservative premier increased it by four cents.

I suspect that we will not find very many news stories or social media hits coming from Conservative members of Parliament criticizing Danielle Smith and the Conservative Government of Alberta for increasing the price of gas by four cents a litre for Albertans. If I am wrong, members can please send me the link to their social media that says, as a member of Parliament, they are upset with the Premier of Alberta.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of equity, diversity and inclusion, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

The Conservatives have evolved. I am pleased to see that when I read their motion. It takes them time, because they do not evolve at the same rate as everyone else. There has, however, been some progress, because nowhere in the motion does it say that there is a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh carbon tax. I asked the member for Lévis—Lotbinière how many carbon taxes there were now.

There is nothing in there that says that the carbon tax applies explicitly to Quebec. What they are asking, after a preamble I will address because it is full of insinuations, not necessarily explicit inaccuracies, but insinuations, is that the federal, provincial and territorial governments sit down together. This is progress, because, for the first time, the Conservatives’ discourse includes an attempt at dialogue, and the level of demagoguery has been toned down a notch, although it is still there.

Obviously, the preamble is problematic because they talk about the increase in the carbon tax, suggesting that it might apply to Quebec. It does not apply to Quebec. In the preamble, they talk about the carbon tax crisis and tell us that Canada now ranks 62nd out of 67 countries in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. “Canada” ranks 62nd out of 67 countries; Quebec is doing better.

It is another way of telling Quebeckers and Canadians that this is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. It is another way of denying the fact that there is a connection between taxation and the environment. What the Conservatives forgot to say was that we ranked 62nd out of 67 countries, but that the 61 countries ahead of us have a higher carbon tax. I would have liked to see that in the motion’s preamble, because there are a lot of carbon pricing systems. That is pertinent to the other provinces and the territories. It has nothing to do with Quebec. I am just saying that the preamble is mediocre.

Then we get to the body of the motion, where they say that we need to get to the bottom of things, where they say there needs to be a dialogue. Quebec, the nine other provinces, the territories and the Prime Minister should meet, the meeting should be transparent, public and fact-based, and everyone should be there.

If they admit that there could be an amendment to correct the inaccuracies and remove the insinuations from the preamble, and say that there should be a meeting, we cannot really oppose the motion if things are done properly. We did it for immigration targets. We asked that the federal government meet with Quebec and the other provinces. However, there were no lies in our preamble. We asked for a meeting on targets, policies and health transfers, but the facts in the preamble to the motion were true.

The Conservatives seem to have moved on now, especially those from Quebec. They sounded like fools with all their questions about whether the carbon tax did or did not apply to Quebec. It took a while, but they learned. Education works. We are proud of ourselves and of our message.

The meeting would make it possible to counteract the last lie that the Conservatives are spreading across English Canada. Now that they know that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, they are spreading the lie that Quebec is taking advantage of other Canadians. The carbon tax would rise to $80 per metric tonne of carbon, while we in Quebec would only be paying $47. As a result, in addition to being a bunch of lazy freeloaders receiving equalization payments, Quebeckers would enjoy a free ride in the Canadian federation.

The meeting would enable the Premier of Quebec, if he were to come here to Ottawa, to meet with the other premiers and explain that that is not true. Why? Because in Quebec, we have a cap-and-trade system. We do not regulate the price of pollution, but the amount of pollution. The number of pollution allowances issued was established in advance until 2023, before the Liberal government came to power. It is a bit like the situation with child care centres: Ottawa copies what Quebec does, but perhaps not as well, or with less consensus in society and the other provinces.

In Quebec’s system, the price fluctuates. If at some point energy-consuming or polluting industries want to set up shop in Quebec, the price will go up. If we invest in transition technologies, the price will go down. However, we know we are going to meet our targets, because they are integrated into the system.

It has nothing to do with the federal government. Quebec’s carbon market is tied to that of California, whose economy is larger than Canada’s. If there is someone the California government is not interested in listening to over coffee in the morning, it is the Prime Minister of Canada. They are not interested. California is doing what it is doing because Californians are innovative and forward looking. This system will enable us, by 2030, to reduce our emissions over 1990 levels by 37.5%. It is a system that works.

What is called the Western Climate Initiative is in effect. I did in fact say “Western”. We see that this could include Alberta, which already fits in with the system name. Oregon and Washington have decided to join. The doors are open. We could talk about this. Why are the other provinces not joining this system so that they too can benefit? The doors are wide open.

The system was founded in 2007. The board of directors was made up of people from Quebec, California, Washington State and Nova Scotia. I think we know where that is. Nova Scotia could explain to us why it decided to leave this system, through which it could have paid maybe $47 per metric tonne and focused on innovation and greener growth. That would be a good idea. It was also founded by the governors of Arizona and New Mexico. Arizona and New Mexico are not exactly known for their far-left thinking. Any idea who took part in this system originally? It was Ontario. Ontario decided to voluntarily leave this system, under which it could have participated in a cap-and-trade system with California, Quebec, Oregon, Washington and other players who will be joining.

Naturally, the Conservatives keep telling us that we in Canada are going it alone and that we alone are introducing carbon pricing, making regulations or imposing a structured policy that centres on innovation. In 2023, the World Bank counted 73 pricing systems in the world, which is five more than in 2022. If the Conservatives had their way, it would be zero, but then again they are also in favour of abolishing the UN. There are 69 more systems than there were 20 years ago. There is a global trend. Some people are progressive and want things to move forward, while other people want us to go backwards.

Why am I pointing out how many systems there are? The Conservatives are entitled to be against this. They can have a group dialogue about this. Some do not believe in climate change and others think that taxes are higher. That can be a discussion. However, the reality is very simple.

Take Europe, for example. The European Union has an emissions trading system. Obviously, Europe has major polluters, just like everywhere else. The current system gives these major polluters free allowances. They can pollute. That includes steel mills, aluminum plants and so on. That is the case in these systems, too. They accommodate major polluters as they transition. The system is not anti-industry. They are given allowances, but those allowances are capped. That leaves fewer allowances for other industries, and countries meet their targets. However, the European system is going to wind down.

Europe is not a small place; it is a huge economy. Europe announced that, in 2035, I believe, there will be compensation at the border. Countries and jurisdictions that decide not to do their part in the fight against climate change will pay at the border. Canadian industries will pay. Industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will pay. Quebec industries will be dinged twice when these compensation systems are implemented—and they will be implemented. If Canada does not do its part, we will pay for those who do. What that means for Quebec is unjust treatment at the hands of provinces that have blinders on when it comes to Quebec.

Guess what? The Conservatives will once again claim that this is far-left nonsense, but I think we can all agree that the WTO is not made up of Marxist-Leninists from the Plateau Mont-Royal. The WTO has confirmed that these border adjustments comply with global trade rules. In 10 to 15 years' time, countries that do not contribute to the fight against climate change will be treated the way countries that profit from child labour are treated today. Canada will not be ready.

For all these reasons, I think the preamble could be removed through an amendment. We should always support dialogue. I think all these people need to have a meeting based on premises that are explicitly and implicitly honest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member from across the way has made.

One of the things we should be highlighting is the fact that countries around the world make reference to the province of Ontario and how Ontario had the cap-and-trade system but ultimately opted out. From a personal perspective I think that was a backwards step, because there are many American states that have taken it upon themselves to actually put a price on pollution. The United States as a whole does not have a price on pollution; I guess that is fair to say. However, many American states do, and I think that is something worth noting. In Canada, provinces also have the option; Quebec and B.C. are good examples.

Could the hon. member just expand upon the importance of other jurisdictions?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we should not judge too harshly because the process is not linear. There are some provinces that joined the system and others that left it. There are some political vagaries. Now there may be a willingness to discuss these things to reintegrate them into the system. I think we need to be constructive.

However, we have to be careful. The Conservative motion says that the first ministers must convene to discuss alternatives and better policies for fighting climate change. The Liberal government sent the western provinces the message that they should take taxpayer dollars to put it into pipelines and to invest in carbon capture technologies, which will have absolutely no impact in the short term according to scientists. That is part of their solutions. Now that the Liberals have let the genie out of the bottle, they are having a hard time being seen as credible when it comes to alternatives.

I think that if people in this government want to be part of the solution, they also need to refocus their speeches and stop putting taxpayer money into the pockets of the oil companies.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I took the time to listen carefully to my colleague. I see a glimmer of common sense in him because it looks like he will be voting with the Conservatives on this motion.

I want to come back to the carbon exchange. As he pointed out, it costs about $47 a tonne in Quebec. Unfortunately, the carbon tax in the other provinces is currently over $80.

In that meeting, what would my colleague's reaction be if the federal Liberal government forced Quebec to increase the price of the carbon exchange so that all Canadians are on the same level, which would put Quebec at a disadvantage with all its experience in the carbon exchange?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Where to begin, Mr. Speaker? It is as if he asked me what I would think if the federal government wanted to raise the price of IBM shares, if it wanted to lower the price of Nvidia shares, or if it wanted to go to the Chicago Board of Trade and dictate the price of nickel. The system does not work that way. There are a number of permits, and people exchange them.

If the member for Lévis-Lotbinière is able to do that, I will have him manage my portfolio, and I will have a darn good retirement.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate that the member suggests there need to be alternatives for addressing climate change. I know that there is a thing called the output-based pricing system, which is used to protect major emitters from paying full carbon pricing. Depending on the industry and activity, 80% to 90% are actually exempt from carbon pricing.

I wonder whether the member agrees that what we need to discuss in terms of alternatives is to remove such exemptions so the major emitters are actually paying the full price of carbon pricing.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about the permit exchange system is that we are able to meet our targets while still acknowledging the facts. I do. It is a reality. Some big companies produce and pollute, and it is hard for them to find alternative technology in the very short term. Those companies may end up polluting elsewhere. They are given certain exemptions for a period of time, while they find these technologies.

Meanwhile, we will continue to put a cap on overall emissions levels. However, these exemptions need to be removed. That is what the European Union is going to do, and I agree with that. Most permit exchange regimes will replace exemptions with border offsets that will cost Canadian industries dearly.

Yes, exemptions must be phased out at a time when emissions are being reduced.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering for some time what is behind the Conservatives' fixation on the carbon tax. I am a well-meaning person. I am known for it in my caucus. In fact, the MP for Mirabel constantly says that I am the Mother Teresa of the Bloc Québécois caucus.

I have tried to understand what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to tell us. I often find him hard to follow. He sometimes makes statements we are not sure we understand. He says he wants to fix the budget. I wonder if he wants to do that with a screwdriver and a hammer. I have trouble following him sometimes. He says the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption. Is there any corruption that is worth experiencing? I often wonder.

I have heard the leader of the official opposition remark on numerous occasions that electricians can capture lightning and run it through a wire to light this very room. When I put that end to end, I ask myself whether there is something missing here that would prompt the leader of the official opposition to talk to us about a carbon tax without having a solid grasp of the ins and outs. Back to what I was saying in my introduction: I am a well-intentioned person and I am going to try to unpack this for those listening to us.

I have the key. I have figured out how to decipher the Conservative leader's thinking and to determine his true intentions. To figure this out, it may be best to do what one does with a teenager. When I wanted to understand my son when he was a teen, I looked at what kind of clothes he was wearing. I used clothing psychology. I could see whether he liked such or such a rock band or such or such a trend. He once wore, to my great dismay, a Québec Solidaire shirt. I could figure things out by how my son dressed. Anyone remember that “I love oil & gas” shirt? For the person wearing it, that was a cry from the heart. When someone uses a shirt to express their love for an economic sector, I mean, that is really something. That is an all-consuming passion. The Conservatives went from “I love oil & gas” to “Axe the Tax”. How come? It is because if someone says today that they adore oil and gas at a time of climate change, they may look, well, crazy. That is just my opinion, though, and I am not judging anyone. If, on the other hand, someone says it is not oil and gas that they love, but that they want to defend low-income earners by eliminating a tax, well, that may end up resonating with certain people who do not take the time to unpack what is being said.

What I am hoping to do here in the House is deconstruct the Conservatives' rhetoric. I get the impression that the Leader of the Opposition is not actually defending the purchasing power of families and low-income earners, but rather an ideology that denies climate change and supports the oil and gas sector without reservation. A look at the facts will be the real test.

So let us look at the facts. The direct and indirect impact of the carbon tax on inflation is minimal, if not virtually nil. I have some numbers from the Bank of Canada. Say there is a $15 increase. The Bank of Canada is telling us that the direct impact on inflation will be 0.15%. This 0.15%, when transposed to $1,000, means that for every $1,000 a family spends, $1.50 is spent on the carbon tax. That $1.50 applies only to provinces that have a carbon tax. It does not apply to Quebec. I am not the one saying that, it is the Bank of Canada.

Saying that made the Conservatives sound a bit silly. Why would anyone have a nervous breakdown or start printing T-shirts over $1.50 on every $1,000? That is a bit ridiculous. There is no justification for what the leader of the official opposition was saying. According to him, people are lining up in front of food banks to ask for medical assistance in dying because the carbon tax increased by $1.50 on every $1,000. It seems a little crazy. The Conservatives wanted to talk about indirect impacts. They were clever. The Bank of Canada was unwilling to calculate indirect impacts because it said that they are insignificant, that they amount to almost nothing. Trevor Tombe, an economics professor, did the math. It is funny.

Let us take a closer look at that. He calculated it for Alberta and Ontario, and he came up with some rather surprising figures. That means the indirect impact of the carbon tax would cost about 0.18% in Alberta and 0.20% in Ontario. If we follow that logic, the Conservatives have been shouting for 18 months about 30¢ to 50¢ per $1,000. Is it worth focusing all opposition days on 30¢ to 50¢ per $1,000? Is that why low-income earners are having a hard time finding housing, clothing and food? Is that causing out-of-control inflation? I do not know, but unless they can prove that the opposite is true, I will have a hard time believing the Conservatives.

We must always remember that the carbon tax does not apply directly to Quebec. Professor Tombe found the impact so insignificant that he did not want to calculate it for Quebec. He thought 30¢ to 50¢ was too insignificant.

Let us extrapolate by saying that it affects Quebec by about 0.02% or 0.03%. That would mean that, for every $1,000, the impact of the carbon tax that the Conservatives keep harping on about would cost a family an extra 25¢. This calculation was made by an economics professor who has the support of many of his colleagues. It is not like some members of Parliament who were brandishing a bill with the words “carbon tax” on it and a calculation scribbled on the back by a gas producer.

That inspired me to do something. It occurred to me that it would be very interesting to calculate the economic support given to the oil and gas sector. In the last budget alone, over the next 10 years, nearly $83 billion will be redirected to the oil and gas sector in tax credits. That is huge. It is appalling. That is not counting the pipeline, which we paid $34 billion for. I would like to do the math and tell low-income earners how much tax money they have given to the oil and gas sector. I think that, for every $1,000, we will be a long way from 25¢. It will be much higher.

I said at the outset that I am always well-intentioned. That is true. I am a bit like the Mother Teresa of the Bloc Québécois. I wanted to deconstruct what the Conservatives are saying. Now I want to help them. If they want to work with the premiers, good for them. That is a good idea. We in the Bloc Québécois would be prepared to get on board.

That is why I would be prepared to move an amendment to this motion to have other provinces join the carbon exchange. We can get rid of the carbon tax, and the best way to get rid of it is to propose carbon pricing ourselves. Why not join Quebec? Our arms are open. Like Mother Teresa, we are here to welcome provinces that want to free themselves from the carbon tax while putting a price on the carbon exchange.

I therefore move the following amendment: that the motion be amended by: (a) replacing the words “tax emergency” with the word “pricing”; (b) replacing the words “that this meeting address” with the word “and,”; and (c) deleting paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

I cannot be more well-intentioned than that.

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

I must inform the hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion can only be proposed with the consent of the mover. In the event that he is not present, the House leader, deputy House leader, whip or deputy whip of the mover's party may give or refuse consent in the mover's place.

Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I am asking the acting whip if he consents to the amendment being moved.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we reject the amendment.

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

There is no consent.

Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments, the hon. deputy House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I reflected on as I was listening to the member and his colleague who spoke before him was that the one constituency where the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to gain a lot of traction in terms of his position on a price on pollution is Quebec. I think that is because Quebec has had a price on pollution for many years, understands the importance of it and understands how the mechanics of it work. However, what I cannot understand is how Conservatives, in particular, Conservatives from Quebec, keep talking about this price on pollution and trying to demonize the policy. They must know that Quebeckers believe in pricing pollution, whether it be through a carbon tax or through cap and trade.

What does the member think about this? Can he wrap his head around why Quebec Conservative MPs keep going on about this, even though they know that Quebeckers, by and large, do not support what they are saying?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think what is funniest in the question raised by my colleague is the reaction by the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who brandished a sheet of paper to criticize the Quebec carbon exchange when she herself was in government when this exchange was implemented. Basically, one could say that she acts one way in Quebec City, and another way in Ottawa. That is precisely why the Conservative Party is not doing better in Quebec, because they often talk out of both sides of their mouth.

I would cite the example Quebec's state secularism act. We never heard the leader of the official opposition say he would respect Quebec's choice. That is not good for him. The same applies to Bill 96, which places French above all other languages in Quebec. We heard the leader of the official opposition say he would challenge that. I have never heard the leader of the official opposition say he agreed with special status for Quebec. Maybe that explains why the Conservative Party is so slow to catch on in Quebec.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the principal reasons we oppose this is that the cost of this has a ripple-down impact. For the Town of Shaunavon back home, for example, with the carbon tax increase, it is going to cost the town $78,000. In order for the municipality to cover that off, it would have to raise taxes on ratepayers by at least 8% or 9%. There it is, another example of how the carbon tax continues to pile onto ratepayers more than just at the pumps, which is where the Bloc seems to think it only applies.

I want to know what the member thinks about that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, economists tell us these indirect costs are minimal.

Nevertheless, on the subject of indirect costs, we could talk about Alberta's oil royalties. These costs far outstrip those associated with the carbon tax. Why do I never hear my colleagues talk to us about that?

We could also talk about the indecent amount of public money funnelled to oil companies, money that could help us provide support for our cities and programming that would be far more beneficial for the population than having us simply give money to an economic sector that is making record profits. We could talk about the major oil companies' refining margins going up—these gluttonous companies that are making record profits.

We could talk about all that, but unfortunately the Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil industry prevents them from thinking in these terms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Jonquière.

I think that the Conservative motion gives us a good opportunity to explain to Canadians what is really happening with the climate crisis. The reality is that, when a provincial Conservative premier testified in committee, he gave the government good arguments in favour of the carbon tax. In fact, the testimony the Conservative premiers gave as to why they are against carbon pricing did not make any sense.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite those who are opposed to policies that work to come and explain why they are in favour of doing nothing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reasons why the Conservatives do not want to take action on climate change are very simple. The only reason is the oil industry.

Unfortunately, what will that accomplish in the long term? Since everyone is putting a price on carbon, Quebec's competitiveness in its trade with Europe and the United States will be affected because the Conservatives and the Liberals have decided that the economic sector they are going to focus on is the Canadian oil and gas industry.

The only solution for us is independence.

Advance Disclosure of Budget Measures

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks, the federal government has been parading all over Canada, announcing programs of all kinds and budgetary envelopes in advance, disclosing bits and pieces of the budgetary measures that will be part of the budget to be tabled on April 16.

On a number of occasions, nearly four weeks before the tabling of the budget, the media reported figures shared by cabinet members and the Prime Minister, meaning that some of the financial initiatives that will be included in the finance minister's budget were known in advance. It is disconcerting that the government would violate the principle of secrecy as it relates to fiscal matters, a principle that should be upheld by any responsible and trustworthy government.

Despite this parliamentary tradition and what, in our opinion, the principles of good governance call for, the federal government is prematurely disclosing budget items that are part of a budget plan, a projection for the coming years. These announcements, taken out of context, are preventing the opposition from doing its job properly. Members are learning in dribs and drabs, in isolation, what the next Liberal budget will consist of.

Starting on March 25, ministers began announcing budgetary measures for housing, for the national child care network, for the national pharmacare program regarding oral contraceptives and certain diabetes medications, for the new national school meals program, for the development of artificial intelligence, for strengthening national defence and for mental health.

In short, over the two-week parliamentary recess, a whole bunch of pre-budget announcements were made, a pre-election striptease of sorts, according to an April 3 article in La Presse.

According to Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, budget secrecy is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, and straying from this principle can have a negative impact on business or on the stock market, potentially causing irrevocable harm to some individuals or institutions and unduly benefiting others.

Members will recall that, before the content of the budget that the Minister of Finance intends to table is made public, finance officials usually hold an in camera information session for members and journalists, to preserve the necessary secrecy and to allow members to read the government's budget measures so that they can then debate them with full knowledge of the facts.

The principle of secrecy in relation to fiscal matters is a fundamental principle commonly recognized in a parliamentary democracy and one that should undoubtedly be a matter of consensus in the government and among cabinet members. It is disconcerting that the government itself prematurely disclosed significant budget items without assessing the potential impact of that decision.

There was actually a time in 1989 when, to protect this parliamentary principle, then Prime Minister Mulroney had a journalist criminally charged with stealing confidential information and disclosing it before the budget was tabled. The finance minister at the time, Michael Wilson, decided to present his budget early in order to safeguard the principle of budget secrecy.

What is most worrying is that the Liberal government went ahead with this, ignoring the tradition of a parliamentary practice designed to prevent insider trading and allow parliamentarians to read the budget ahead of time, the better to comment on it.

By announcing its budget to the media in bits and pieces, the federal government is being irresponsible toward all members and particularly toward the opposition parties, which are responsible for keeping an eye on the government's policies.

To disclose certain measures that the government believes will be popular, without allowing parliamentarians and Canadians an opportunity to see the government's entire budget policy, is a ploy that significantly affects the opposition parties' ability to take an informed position and hold the government to account with full knowledge of the facts.

Consequently, we believe that the members of the opposition parties have been obstructed in fulfilling their parliamentary duties, given that they were unable to take an informed position based on all the necessary budget information or to properly inform voters about the budget measures that were announced and their impact or repercussions.

These budget announcements could give financial advantages to certain experts in the field, which could be considered insider trading. That is a fundamental issue for the Speaker's office to address. In addition, it is important to ensure that the premature disclosure of budget measures does not violate the privilege of members of Parliament, who have been impeded in the performance of their duties, leaving them unable to represent and defend the interests of their constituents with full knowledge of the facts.

It will also be important to check whether the premature disclosure had the effect of misleading the public about the budget and, by the same token, members of Parliament. According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 116, misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House.

That is why, if the Chair finds that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.