Debates of May 30th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break

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

Madam Speaker, I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on the fact that the amounts that are collected through these taxes are returned to the provinces in the form of road maintenance transfers. That money would no longer be available if we were to implement today's motion.

Where does my colleague think we could get that money? What impact would that have on the rest of the budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are absolutely silent on that. In essence, it would be taken away, so many Canadians would actually have a net loss, in a significant way, because of this particular commitment that the Conservatives are proposing today.

Business of the House

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, in relation to the consideration of Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference:

(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security,

(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(ii) the committee shall meet for extended hours on Monday, June 3, Tuesday, June 4, Wednesday, June 5 and Thursday June 6, 2024, to gather evidence from witnesses,

(iii) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the officials from the RCMP and CSIS, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, the officials from the Department of Public Safety, and other expert witnesses deemed relevant by the committee be invited to appear,

(iv) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m., on Friday, June 7, 2024,

(v) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(vi) the committee shall meet at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, June 10, 2024, to consider the bill at clause-by-clause consideration, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 6:30 p.m., each party shall be allotted no more than five minutes for each of the remaining amendments and clauses, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,

(vii) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1); and

(b) the bill shall be ordered for consideration at report stage on Wednesday, June 12, 2024.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. Obviously, I am looking forward to hearing his speech.

I gave a statement in the House a couple of hours ago about how the citizens of Calgary Midnapore are suffering as a result of nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. I mentioned such tragic things as young adults not being able to have the children they dreamed of having, as a result of economic circumstances. I talked about parents having to pull kids out of organized sports. As a hockey mother, I can say that it is not a cheap endeavour to do organized sports in this day and age. There are also seniors who are so embarrassed. They have contributed so much to this country and now have to rely on food banks, as do over two million Canadians.

In my time, I would like to share a few more heartbreaking stories from my riding, explain why this is happening after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government and, finally, suggest a small step or solution the Conservatives are providing for the House to consider. Hopefully, members will vote in favour of it come this Monday.

As I indicated, I am hearing tragic story after tragic story out of my riding, and it is no surprise to me considering that Albertans pay an average of $2,943 per year for the carbon tax. I will start with a very sad email from Belinda. Belinda, from my riding, writes:

Please help Canadians. My husband works a job downtown and I work we have three teenagers at [a local high school]. We are college educated and can't afford anything besides necessities. I have never written to an mp but feel like our whole community is desperate. Mental health is being affected. We no longer have funds to do anything fun. We have to rip our kids out of sports next year.

That is a heartbreaking proposition for a parent, I am sure. “And it's killing me inside”, Belinda writes. “Help us please help it change.”

I received another email from Jacob. Jacob, from my riding, writes:

I'm reaching out to express the general sense of dread associated with my family's future. We are living in a time where we are experiencing the highest prices on every non-discretionary item on our budget. From the gas pump to the grocery store. From the fear of heating my home to keep my family warm, to buying my son new sneakers—

I know all about that.

—it seems too much to bear. I am asking that you represent me and my family in Ottawa, a place that seems to have forgotten us Albertans. Please fight to eliminate these unnecessary and ineffective taxes, and to bring common sense back to Canada. Please fight to make Canada affordable again.

I also received this email from Ace, who is in the beautiful community of Silverado in my riding:

Is the liberal government aware of the housing crisis and the high cost of living that are facing Canadians? With the carbon tax and the high interest rates, we can feel the impact. We are all struggling day in and day out to make ends meet. Where is our prime minister who we thought was cheering for the middle class?

I have recently met more and more people who cannot afford housing, rent and groceries. Wasn't this used to be a basic thing to afford if we have a job? As an Uber driver, I hear a lot of stories from all walks of life, good and bad. But lately I have been hearing a lot of sad stories about people who cannot afford the cost of living anymore. I am going to share a few with you. A young lady told me that she was thinking of getting married and having kids, but now it is impossible for her dream to come true as homes and rentals are out of reach. I spoke with an oldish man in his 50's—

I hope that is not too old.

—who used to live in a nice townhouse in Calgary, but now lives in one room in a shared accommodation because his townhouse rent doubled and he could no longer afford it. Another story, I met a young lady who had moved from BC to Calgary, she told me the rent was so expensive that she had to work as a part time sex worker to pay the bills. Last but not least, I met a lot of young men and women who moved back to their parents' basement because they cannot afford rent.

Are higher interest rates helping us to bring down inflation? The fact of the matter is THEY ARE NOT, but all it does is bring down the middle class and make us poorer and poorer. I sometimes wonder whether our government in Ottawa is not aware of the citizens' issues or does not care. I quite frankly do not see any improvement to our lives. Life is getting more and more expensive and poverty is a national epidemic. Who is fighting for us?

In a nutshell, the high cost of living is destroying us. We need a proactive government that would do its best to help its fellow citizens. We are drowning in poverty. PLEASE HELP!

These are just some of the sad and desperate stories that I have received from my citizens in Calgary Midnapore. When I look at the actions of the government, I see why this is the case. The government is spending out of control and has an absolute obsession with outside consultants and passing on funding to Liberal friends, not to Canadians.

We need only look at the most recent supplementary estimates, which I had the opportunity to discuss with the President of the Treasury Board yesterday at the government operations committee. Planned spending in 2023-24 has reached a record $21.6 billion. That is incredible. There is $704 million in proposed spending on professional and special services, and this amount will likely increase with additional spending requests in subsequent supplementary estimates. In 2023-24, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat lapsed, at the end of the fiscal year, $500 million, but it indicated that of the $500 million, $350 million was for professional and special services.

Even with the $350 million in consultant savings, the cost for consultants increased by $3 billion. It is not even one-sixth of the $3 billion that was spent by the Liberal government, due to its obsession with consulting, in the year before. Current estimates have the costs at higher than $1.2 billion, but lower than last fiscal year by $1.8 billion. It is highly likely to increase, however.

When the President of the Treasury Board was present yesterday at the government operations committee, I pointed out the $39.8-billion deficit currently in existence, in addition to the record amount being spent on consultants, as I had said before, and the additional $1.9 billion in interest in the supplementary estimates, which apparently the Treasury Board president failed to remember during the last round of spending. Who knows how much this amount will be in the future.

Another example of this out-of-control spending on consultants is the hiring of the consulting firm KPMG to, ironically, find ways for the government to save money. As for the two contracts for KPMG, one was valued at $325,000 and the second one was valued at $344,650, for a total of $669,650.

The problem with the government is clearly that it is not listening to Canadians. The good news is that Conservatives have a plan, through a motion, that will allow families to have a bit of joy this summer: getting rid of the GST on gasoline and diesel, eliminating the carbon tax and the federal fuel tax just until Labour Day. This will save the average Canadian family $670 and 35.6¢ a litre.

If the government could kindly give up its obsession with spending and consultants and support our motion, along with the other parties in the House, including its NDP and Bloc coalition members, this would be a gift for Canadians during the summer. I certainly hope all members of this House will consider doing that.

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

Madam Speaker, this is interesting. The member is criticizing the government, saying that we are not listening. I am listening to the member, and she is talking about all these needs. We are bringing forward answers to many of those needs, whether through the dental program or the pharmacare program that I referenced. There are so many things we are addressing for the needs, including the disability plan.

Then she brings it to an end by saying that we are not listening, and families will benefit by $670. That is just not true. Can she intentionally mislead as blatantly as that? The average Canadian is not going to benefit by $670. That is just wrong. The member cannot substantiate it.

Can the member substantiate her statement that average Canadians will benefit by $670? If so, how?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the numbers that I just shared substantiate that. There are record levels of debt, record levels of deficit and record amounts being spent on consultants.

As I have said time and time again in this House, the government takes and takes with one hand and gives a tiny bit back with the other, tiny scraps of what it takes. The member is just trying to perpetuate a mistruth.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to challenge my colleague on something. Throughout her speech, she spoke about the Liberal government's out-of-control spending.

I would like to point out to her that the Conservatives are adding a new expenditure of $1.4 billion over three months, which is rather ridiculous.

How can she assure us that, if this money is spent, it would go to those who need it most? Usually, it is the more fortunate who spend the most money on gas with their fancy cars.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I know that members of the Bloc Québécois never appreciate what Alberta is doing. Frankly, the natural resources sector has given so much to Canada. I think that is obvious with this question.

As an Albertan and a Conservative, I can say that my party and I will continue to work for all of Canada, including Quebec. It is important to understand that everyone across Canada needs all sectors of the economy, including the natural resources sector.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech and I agree that people are suffering in this country. However, the Conservatives seem to put it all on the carbon tax, when as governments, we consistently and consecutively legislate poverty.

I want to note a statement from the Ontario Human Rights Commission that talks about poverty. It says that to deal with poverty, we need to recognize the right to an adequate standard of living, help by providing good health care and a universal basic income, and ensure we meet needs related to food insecurity, minimum wage and low-paid work.

Why do the Conservatives focus on one thing instead of dealing with the problem in the first place?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who I enjoy seeing. I also very much enjoyed it when her mother was in the House.

The member talks about legislating poverty. It is my belief that her and her party have been legislating poverty for the last 36 months, working hand in hand with the government. She and her party always have a chance to make the choice to leave their agreement so that Canadians have a choice in how they would like this nation to go forward. Hopefully, we can reduce the debt and this deficits, reduce this obsession with outside consultants and bring some ease to Canadians. The first little step the member and her party can take is to support the motion we are putting forward on Monday.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that two people from my riding are here in Ottawa. These two young people are just embarking on their political careers. Audrey-Anne and Annabelle have been learning a lot during their time in Ottawa. I hope they will enjoy the debate. I am very pleased to have them here in Ottawa with us. I would also like to thank my colleague from Calgary Midnapore for her excellent speech.

After nine years, this Prime Minister and his Bloc Québécois supporters are just not worth the cost of $500 billion in Bloc-endorsed inflationary spending that is forcing parents to skip meals to save their families.

Today's motion is about suspending the gas tax for the summer. While the Bloc Québécois leader and a number of the MPs on his team are campaigning to radically increase gas taxes, Quebeckers in the regions who do not have access to public transit are paying a hefty price. Talk about being completely out of touch with Quebec. I will say more about that later in my speech.

I have a few statistics about the impact that nine years of this Prime Minister's government has had on Quebeckers. This year, food banks are helping 872,000 people every month. That is a 30% increase over 2022 and 73% over 2019. In 2019, 500,000 people were helped by food banks every month. Now there are 872,000. Behind those statistics shared by the press are human beings, vulnerable people, families, children, single people who are experiencing food insecurity and do not know whether they will have enough to eat each day. More and more working families are seeking help because people just do not have the means to cope with all the increases imposed by nine years of this Liberal government.

I want to quote from an article entitled “Housing has become a privilege”:

Soon, there will be nowhere for us to go, those of us who do not make a lot of money and who live in vulnerable situations. Housing prices are so high!

Among them, there are people who will end up in the encampments that are popping up everywhere.

In another article entitled “Housing crisis and mental health: Quebec organizations call out for help”, a spokesperson for the Regroupement des comités logements et associations de locataires du Québec states the following:

We hear from tenants who intend to commit suicide. This is more than just despair. They do not see a way out, and they want it to be over. That is what it has come to.

I have one last article from the Journal de Montréal entitled “Proof of of the housing crisis, she will soon be forced to live in her van”. Here is a quote:

This is what's become of me. I feel ashamed. I'm mad at myself, but also at the government, which treats it like a political issue. It's not a political issue, it's a crisis!

Nine years of Liberal governance has led us to this crisis, and we need to find solutions. We need to take action to help Quebeckers and Canadians get through this. The Bloc Québécois is certainly not helping Quebeckers by supporting $500 billion in inflationary spending by this government.

What is $500 billion in inflationary spending? It is the government's budgetary appropriations. These appropriations represent the money we voted on in Parliament. What are they funding? They are funding the bureaucracy, the consultants, the agencies, and the contributions to corporations and lobbies. In short, it is the money being used to fuel the big federal monster from which the separatists want to separate. It is rather surprising. We would think that a separatist party would vote against this budget that helps fuel this big federal monster. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The leader of the Conservative Party raised a very important point in the House. He said that he found it fascinating that a so-called separatist party from Quebec literally never supported reducing the tax burden on Quebeckers. That party never supports tax cuts. One would think that a separatist party would never support forcing Quebeckers to send their money to Ottawa, but no. In their own words, Bloc members want to drastically increase taxes.

When we think about it, it is true. Today, the Bloc Québécois claims to vote in the interest of Quebeckers, but we see that it is not true. We see that it is just a slogan. What the Bloc Québécois is really saying is that it will always vote in the interest of its party and its little brother in Quebec City, the Parti Québécois. The Parti Québécois does not represent all Quebeckers.

If the Bloc Québécois really wanted to vote for all Quebeckers, it would not hesitate to vote for Bill C‑234 as it was written. It was designed to abolish the carbon tax imposed on farmers. As everyone knows, if we tax the people who make the food, the food will cost more. Who is going to pay for more expensive food? Everyone, obviously.

If the Bloc Québécois were truly the party for Quebeckers, and not the federal branch of the Parti Québécois, it would think about people in the regions. I am talking about people in Matane, Joliette, Thetford Mines, Mirabel, Saint-Hyacinthe, the people who need their vehicles to get around, to go to work, for recreation. Yes, these people need their vehicles to get around.

A study was published by Le Journal de Montréal in 2023. The article was entitled, “Cost of living: How much does it cost to live outside the big cities?” I would like to quote from it:

Living outside the major centres of Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay, Sept-Îles, Gatineau and Sherbrooke can get expensive pretty quickly. The further away you live, the higher the cost of living. A family of two adults and two children can survive on a livable income of $71,161 a year in Montreal, but it increases to $76,918 in Sept-Îles. In Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, in the Gaspé Peninsula, that number rises to $78,621.

Why? The answer is simple, “The big difference between the cost of living in town and in the regions is the need for a car. If you have a family, you have two cars.” A father of four in Cap-d'Espoir said, “They need gas and gas is more expensive than it is in Montreal. It all adds up, so yes, there are things that cost more.”

Like the Liberals, the Bloc wants people in the regions to pay more for getting around. They would like the carbon tax to be drastically increased. I have a pile of statements here from Bloc Québécois members calling for the tax to be drastically increased, who say that the tax is not high enough and that we should immediately triple it to make people pay for pollution. For people living in the regions, pollution is the fuel they put in their car to get around, to go to work, to take part in leisure activities.

Not wanting to budge from that sort of ideology has consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences are that Quebec families, workers in the regions are paying the price. I would like the Bloc Québécois to realize that. The Bloc Québécois members want to punish Quebeckers to appease their conscience by making them pay more for fuel. It is an essential commodity for those who live in the regions, who do not have access to structured public transit services like those in the big city.

I am eager to see whether the Bloc Québécois will support our motion today to suspend federal taxes on fuel. Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Quebeckers should keep their money in their pockets instead of sending it to Ottawa? If we were to ask that question to anyone in Quebec, they would say that that is surely not what the Bloc Québécois wants.

However, from what I have heard today from the representatives of the Bloc, it is apparently not that easy or straightforward. One would expect it to be a no-brainer for a party that wants to separate from the big federal machine. Unfortunately, I would be very surprised if the Bloc Québécois supported us, because, as I said earlier, they want to drastically increase gas taxes. To keep expanding the big federal Liberal machine, the Bloc Québécois will keep sending Quebeckers' money to Ottawa. Once again, I will quote the member from Carleton:

The Bloc Québécois supports high taxes, massive federal debt and a bloated bureaucracy that meddles in everything but is good at nothing. We should also remember that the Bloc Québécois supports a justice system that frees repeat offenders and bans hunting rifles. In fact, an independent Quebec with the leader of the Bloc Québécois as premier would be almost identical to the federal state led by the current Prime Minister.

When we look at the facts and at the action taken by the members of the Bloc Québécois in the House, we cannot help but agree with the words of the Leader of the Opposition. To really change things so that Quebeckers have more money in their pockets, members need to support this Conservative motion, which seeks to suspend the federal gas tax. I think that there is only one real option for Quebeckers who want more money in their pockets and that is the Conservative Party's common-sense plan.

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

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party is trying to give the impression that the average Canadian will benefit by $670 because of this particular policy. That is just not true.

I would suggest that it would be lucky if 5% of Canada's population would get the maximum benefit of $670. Does the member have any evidence whatsoever to clearly show I am wrong in my estimation of 5% of the population, if that?

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

Madam Speaker, there is one thing I am sure of. I hear the member for Winnipeg North trying to distract from the debate at hand, but there is one number I am sure of, which is that 100% of people who put gas in their vehicles want lower taxes. That is a fact. No one is happy paying tax when they are putting gas in their vehicle.

We are asking for common sense. Right now, people have less money in their pockets. We want to leave them with more by cutting gas taxes for the summer at least, so they can enjoy summer too.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for ascribing such power and importance to the Bloc Québécois. Indeed, we really are a bulwark against the Conservative Party. It seems to me that the Conservative members are doing something they do a lot: making up problems that do not exist and coming up with solutions that certainly do not work.

Here is an example. Right now, the government is returning all of the revenue from the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec. I have had to repeat this several times. Maybe one day the opposition members will get it. In the provinces where it does apply, people are reimbursed for this tax, which does not apply in Quebec. Voting for this measure to abolish the tax for three months works out to $3 billion, $3 billion that Quebeckers would have to pay.

I do not know why my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable does not talk about the debt he would be forcing Quebeckers to take on this summer. Instead of having money in their pockets, they will have to pay for Canada, which does not want to do the same thing Quebec is doing, that is, participating in the carbon market.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois serves as a bulwark. I would have liked to hear my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable comment on the fact that, two weeks ago, we were talking about women's right to control their own bodies. The House was full, but I did not see anyone applauding the parties opposite or over there. Ours, however—

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

I will give the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable the opportunity to answer the question.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, the carbon tax, federal carbon pricing, does not apply in Quebec, because Quebec has the carbon exchange. However, that does not matter. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Quebeckers are still not paying enough yet.

Here is what the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert had to say on the matter:

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far.

I think the UN was recommending that the tax be set at $200 per tonne now. Based on what we are hearing, it will be about $170 per tonne in 2030.

That is three times the price we are paying in taxes right now. The Bloc Québécois is not saying it out loud, but what it wants is for Quebeckers to pay more at the pumps, period.

Can they vote in favour of our motion to give Quebeckers a break this summer, yes or no?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in Ontario, the Conservative government under Doug Ford scrapped the cap-and-trade system we had. It cost billions of dollars to get out of the agreement that had been made and that was functioning very strongly. Now we have a carbon tax, rather than that system. Ironically, cap and trade was developed more to tax businesses and the real polluters, versus what we are now stuck with.

What does my colleague think about Doug Ford's putting us in the situation where it cost us billions of dollars to get out of cap and trade, and now putting us in the current situation?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's government has done a lot of damage to this country over the past nine years. It has doubled the cost of housing. It has caused inflation to reach its highest level in 40 years. No one, not a single young family, can still dream of owning a home or property, because it is too expensive.

Without a doubt, the NDP has made its bed. It chose this Prime Minister's Liberal government.

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

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 Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, Mental Health and Addictions.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it will be my absolute pleasure to be sharing my time with the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

As always, it is a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of residents of my riding of Davenport to today's opposition motion by the Conservatives. I am going to read the motion, just because, in my own imagination, I always think that of course there are people who might want to look at this at a future date and they are going to want to know what the opposition motion is about. The motion states:

That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day.

First of all, there is no NDP-Liberal government, so we should probably just state that up front. There is a supply and confidence agreement between the Liberal government and the NDP.

I would also say that I do not agree with the premise of this motion. It is not the carbon pricing that is stopping Canadians from affording a summer vacation. The only provinces that are actually subject to carbon pricing are those provinces that do not have a current plan in place to reduce their carbon emissions. For example, my home province of Ontario, and it was just mentioned by one of my NDP colleagues here, did have a carbon-pricing mechanism before the current provincial government was elected in 2016. It was a cap-and-trade system with Quebec and California. When the provincial Conservative government in Ontario got into office, it cancelled that system and, unfortunately, not only was there a cost to cancelling it, but the province actually lost, and I remember this very clearly, $3 billion in annual revenue. On top of that, the government did not replace it with another system to reduce carbon emissions.

It is known that climate change is happening. Every country in the world needs to do its part to reduce emissions, to meet its Paris Agreement targets and to move to a low-carbon future.

The Conservatives like to make bold and, sadly, unfounded assertions that carbon pricing is worsening food-security challenges in this country, but there is no evidence that this is happening. In fact, time and again, the data suggest that the impact of carbon pricing on inflation is the equivalent of a rounding error. We hear that time and time again in the finance committee. This fact is also supported by the Bank of Canada and many others. Carbon pricing has no real, discernible impact on any increases of food costs in this country. We have seen experts appear at the agriculture committee suggesting the same, saying that they can find no straight line between carbon pricing and food costs.

Therefore, what do we know? During a high inflationary period worldwide, compared to G7 countries, many that do not have carbon pricing, Canada has the second-lowest food inflation rate.

What else is the data telling us? It is telling us about the impacts of climate change on food costs. Let us take, for example, the impact on grapes or cherries, like those in Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Increased forest fires taint the crops, rendering the products of those farmers unsellable. Blueberry farms in Nova Scotia, like the one in the riding of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who unfortunately spoke against carbon pricing yesterday, are losing large amounts of crops to huge fluctuations in precipitation that lead to either drought conditions or extreme wet weather. Let us also talk about the impacts of flooding on animal agriculture, like what we saw during the atmospheric river flooding in the Lower Mainland of B.C. We saw cows up to their udders in flood water; we saw many barns destroyed; and, unfortunately and very sadly, we saw many animals perish.

We also have seen the climate impacts on invasive species on our crops. We have seen that climate change helps the spread of new pests that threaten both crops and animals. We are also seeing the climate change impacts on the warming of the oceans, and that this warming poses a serious threat to the billion-dollar east coast lobster fishery.

I could go on and on with a lot of examples, but these are the costs that we have to be very focused on. These are the real costs of climate change, and they are happening in real time, year after year.

Where is the leader of the party opposite to be found in actually addressing these issues with real solutions? He is nowhere. We all remember last year when, being the leader of the party opposite, he had to cancel the axe the tax rallies in Yukon and Okanagan Valley because of wildfires. Yet, he has absolutely nothing to say about climate change, nothing to say to farmers and the next generation of farmers about how the Canadian government will take their concerns seriously and support them to be more resilient in the face of a changing climate.

Actually, there is something else that members opposite are not being honest about. Taking away the price on pollution would also remove the Canada carbon rebate and hurt people with that key income support, which is helping them to put food on the table. The Canada carbon rebate benefits lower-income Canadians the most. These are Canadians who tend to suffer most from food insecurity.

Germaine Romberg in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is on a fixed income and depends on the Canada carbon rebate payments to make ends meet to pay for rent and for other necessities. The $300 she got every four months last year on top of her disability payments made a world of difference for her monthly bills. She is not alone; this story has played out with Canadians across the country.

A study published late last year in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, called “Canadian food inflation: International dynamics and local agency”, looked at the difference between the amount Canadians pay and the amount they get back in the Canada carbon rebate. The author concluded that:

Removing the tax may actually make some Canadians, particularly lower-income and rural Canadians, worse off than they are under the carbon tax...The impacts of the carbon tax on food prices are suggested to be small. If they are smaller than the difference between CAI payments and carbon tax paid, many Canadian households will suffer a net loss due to the repeal of the tax.

This is the same thing that the Government of Canada has been saying all along: Eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay.

There are tens of thousands of Canadians out there like Germaine in Saskatoon, who, if they lost their rebate payments, would have their ability to purchase food severely diminished. We know that Conservatives, sadly, would deprive people of these rebate payments if they ever got into power.

I am going to repeat something that one of my colleagues said this morning, because I really believe it is important to be repeated. It reads:

Carbon pricing continues to be the most efficient, simple and cost-effective way to meet our targets. It is a measure that encourages the whole population, every household and every business, to find ways to cut pollution, whether and however they would like. It sends a powerful message forward of confidence to businesses to invest in cleaner technologies to be more energy efficient in the future.

Carbon pricing does not raise the cost of living. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, as I mentioned earlier, it represents only a tiny fraction of inflation and increase in the price of groceries, which is less than half a percent. However, there is a 10% supplement for people living in rural and remote communities. We proposed increasing it to 20%, but the Conservatives, sadly, have been delaying Bill C-59 for months now. I am hoping that they will stop delaying this, but for provinces under the federal pricing system with a Canada carbon rebate, 80% of Canadian households receive a refund greater than what they pay. In fact, if carbon pricing were abolished today, not only would clean energy investment and job creation grind to a halt, but our low- and middle-income families would have less money in their pockets.

I am urging all members of this House to vote “no” to the opposition day motion, because, unfortunately, the Conservative opposition party has no plan to address climate change, and no plan to actually help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, but here we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and what does the government do? It had a successful program, the greener homes program, that employed many tradespeople and enabled people to reduce their energy needs and their carbon footprint. People were able to take autonomy in their own homes to come up with a cleaner energy future and be part of that story. It is still out of reach for many Canadians, as many Canadians need heat pumps and cannot access them, but this government killed that program, which was hugely successful.

Is my colleague, whom I have worked with many times on climate-related issues, going to be working with her government to bring that program back and actually expand it so that all Canadians can access it and help tackle this climate crisis?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passion.

I agree with him. It was a very popular program. The residents in my riding of Davenport loved that program as well. He will recall that when we introduced the program, it was not that easy to apply to. We reintroduced it and, all of a sudden, an overabundance of Canadians applied.

My understanding is that there continues to be a lot of support for that program and we are hoping to reintroduce that program in the near future.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to commiserate with the member for Davenport in having her office vandalized in such a gruesome manner that now the Toronto Police Services Hate Crime Unit is investigating it as a hate crime. As one member of Parliament to another, we do not enjoy such things being done to our offices and the risks that come to our office staff.

A previous member of the Liberal Party mentioned William Nordhaus, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. In his research that has been used by IPCC, and I have read the IPCC report, he specifically points out that if we have carbon taxes, we should do nothing else because they are very damaging to the economy. Of course, the government's policy has been to try to do all of it, which has been damaging to the economy. Even William Nordhaus's research demonstrates that in his calculations.

I wonder if the member would agree with William Nordhaus that we should only have carbon taxes, which is the economist's preferred path. Our preference on this side is to go with homeowners and families in our ridings who are just looking for a break from one long weekend to the next so this summer they can have a staycation and not to pay any of the excise taxes, gas taxes and GST on any of their fuels.