Debates of Dec. 1st, 2025

(The House resumed at 12:33 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we allow the member for Markham—Unionville to begin his statement, I ask whether he has the unanimous consent of the House to allow him to deliver his remarks from a seat that is not assigned to him.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one message the Conservatives have for the Liberals when it comes to their overall approach in bills like Bill C-4: Get out of the way.

On the surface, the Liberals are selling Bill C-4 as a way to give a tax break to 22 million Canadians, among other components. That is the headline. That is the label on the package. What is in the fine print on this packaging? The Conservatives took a look. The fine print is about embedding this proposed tax break in the bigger picture of Liberal deficit spending.

We just passed a new budget running a $78-billion deficit. The government is adding $90 billion in new spending. That is $5,000 per Canadian household. Meanwhile, the tax break on offer for Canadians in Bill C-4 checks out to $90 per month. Anything on offer in the bill is already wiped out by interest on the Liberals' deficit spending. The central-planning Liberals are committed to interventionist tactics. We, as Conservatives, are simply asking them to get out of the way of hard-working Canadians so they can build our country strong.

We are in a shameful situation in this country, where over two million Canadians are visiting food banks every month. At the end of every month, paycheques are not going far enough. Why is that? The Liberals want to deflect and blame this solely on the trade deficit. However, there is a simple economic fact: When we create more units of currency and map them to an economy that is not meaningfully producing more units of goods and services, we get inflation. As a case in point, in the last five years, grocery prices have risen more than 20%. We cannot print our way out of economic stagnation. We are already in this situation because of all the deficit spending engaged in during the Trudeau years. Why are we doing more of the same?

How insulting it is to hard-working Canadians for the Liberals to create a macro situation where paycheques are not enough for food and rent, then pat themselves on the back for doling out welfare in various guises. It is no different from throwing rocks at household windows and offering window replacement services, or pushing us into a pool and offering us a floater, yet this is the world view of the interventionist, nanny-state central planners. The interest payments on our debt already exceed what is transferred to provinces for health care, yet the modus operandi of the nanny state is rather to add to this debt instead of simply letting the natural drive of hard-working Canadians carry our economy forward.

Instead of getting out of the way, the Liberals choose to continually stand in the way of a naturally productive, real economy. How can we meaningfully affect prices at the grocery store when the industrial carbon tax makes it harder to grow food, when the fuel standard makes it harder to ship food and when the packaging tax makes it harder to sell food? The Liberals operate in a system of intervention and then propose branded, one-shot measures to create the image of doing good by Canadians. If they stopped their environmentalist overreach, Canadians could do good by themselves.

I want to affirm, right now, that all parties in the House seem to me to be committed to making lives more affordable for Canadians. What separates us is not only our methods but also what we can call accumulated technical debt from previous approaches. No matter how many one-off, targeted measures the Liberals put on offer, they are weighed down by the second-order effects of having engaged in far too much deficit spending. The cumulative path of dependence on 10 years of out-of-control spending is a national situation where monthly income cannot meet monthly bills. Therefore, what we must address here is the root of the mindset behind all the deficit spending.

Allow me a moment to address how the Liberals could get out of the way and, in so doing, alter the course of Canada's affordability crisis. We can do this only by empowering hard-working Canadians to take the lead.

The first shift is one of mindset. Do the Liberals believe in the capacity of their fellow citizens? Do they believe in the entrepreneurs and businesses that move the needle economically in this country? If they do not, I completely understand why they are so attached to interventionist measures. It all makes sense. Otherwise, if the Liberals actually believe in the people, they should get out of the way and create opportunities for everyday Canadians to step up through grassroots initiatives.

The second shift consists of removing all the hidden taxes that pile onto the price of groceries. The Conservatives will keep on repeating this until the Liberals hear us: Remove the industrial carbon tax, remove the fuel standard and remove the packaging tax. When I say, “Get out of the way”, there is a very literal way to do this. Why are the Liberals hindering every single step of the grocery supply chain? Food is such a fundamental part of total monthly spending, and this is the one, single area where a concerted effort to get out of the way would yield genuine results. The Liberals do not need a history lesson from me, but one of the core drivers of the French Revolution was the elevated price of grain. There is no area where the Liberals should be more incentivized to get out of the way than the total supply chain that affects grocery prices. When it comes to food, the issue extends beyond partisanship. This is life or death.

Finally, the third shift is amplifying the power of a common Canadian paycheque. Canadians are already putting in the hours, day in and day out. Why can Canadians not afford basic necessities through the income they are already earning? It is an insult to every hard-working household to receive handouts after putting in an honest day's work. I believe the Liberals need to do some soul-searching around how they have created this macro trap where the average monthly salary is not enough to afford the average monthly bills.

The bottom line here is very clear: The $90-per-month benefit in Bill C-4 is wiped out by the $5,000-per-household cost of deficit spending in the new Liberal budget. If the Liberals want to address affordability, their first step should be tackling the basket of items in every Canadian's monthly spend: groceries. They can do this by stopping their nanny-state, central-planning interventions, stopping the industrial carbon tax, stopping the fuel standard and stopping the packaging tax.

My Liberal colleagues, please get out of the way of hard-working Canadians and have the conviction that people can make this economy thrive.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.

The member mentioned clean fuel standards. I find it disappointing that the Conservative Party, at a time when canola farmers in this country and members of the Canola Council of Canada are talking about the importance of biofuel policy in driving domestic demand while there is uncertainty in the markets.

Can the member opposite explain why the Conservative Party is against the biofuel policy that helps support canola farmers, including in many of the ridings the Conservative Party represents?

Also, on China, we think it is important to engage as a government and to have conversations to remove the tariffs that are in place. The member for Simcoe North and other Conservative members have suggested that any engagement with China is a bad policy.

Would the member care to give his perspective on that, as well?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at what is happening today, we are seeing reciprocal tariffs between China and Canada. When Canada imposed a 100% tax on electric vehicles, China imposed reverse tariffs on Canada. What we need to look at is how effective the Liberal government has been in negotiating all the tariffs around the world, whether it is with China, the U.S. or Europe. We seem to be getting more tariffs rather than reducing them.

I would like to understand how the Liberal government is going to be addressing this and demonstrating to Canadians that it is working for Canadians.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by officially scrapping the carbon tax, Bill C-4 confirms that Quebeckers were robbed.

The Liberal government decided to entice voters with compensation for the carbon tax, even though the tax had not even been levied for the period in question. This was funded through taxes paid by Quebeckers, meaning we lost $814 million.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is another demonstration of the Liberal government mismanaging the taxes it has collected. The so-called carbon tax, back then, was ineffective. It did not do anything for Canadians and did not do anything for carbon reduction. It is a reflection of the Liberal government's mismanagement.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the hypocrisy of the Liberals.

For a decade, they said that, if we did not believe in the carbon tax, the world would burn, and that if we were against the inflationary carbon tax, flooding and catastrophes would happen. Then they turned around and withdrew the carbon tax, saying that it was too inflationary.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for highlighting the fearmongering slogans the Liberal government used to scare Canadians. However, with the stroke of a pen, it was able to eliminate the tax, and the world did not crash.

How can we now believe that, with this budget and going forward, the Liberal government can continue to deliver benefits to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is interesting. Here we are debating Bill C-4, which would give a tax break to 22 million Canadians, get rid of the carbon tax for consumers and provide for getting rid of the GST for first-time homebuyers. One would think that this is something the Conservative Party of Canada could get behind and want us to pass.

Will the member give his personal commitment to try to get this thing passed before Christmas?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to my speech, I said that, for $90 a month, we end up with a $5,000 deficit for each household. In my simple math, that does not really work out well. When we look at the various components of this, eliminating one tax and then piling up other taxes would not benefit Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we resume debate, I will inform the House that the technical issues with the broadcast appear to have been fixed. Going forward, members will be expected to speak from their assigned seats.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

To no one's surprise, the Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill, because it fails to meet Quebeckers' real needs in several respects.

Let us begin with the elephant in the room: the tax cut. No one can be against tax cuts, obviously, but it is all a matter of perspective. Currently, the maximum tax reduction for an individual taxpayer amounts to a savings of $4 a week this year and $8 a week in 2026. During the student strike, that would not even pay for one coffee a day. In other words, the taxpayer will receive a maximum of $210 in 2025.

This brings us back to a crucial question. What is Canada's financial position? Right now, the budget deficit is estimated at $78 billion. In the coming years, the government will be forced to take action by making cuts all over the place. Therefore, asking where this $210 in savings is going to come from is a legitimate question. If taxpayers have to resort to the private health care sector to get an appointment more quickly because of government cuts to health transfers, those savings disappear. If taxpayers see their rent go up because Ottawa fails to transfer money for housing to the provinces, those savings disappear. There is no shortage of examples of ways that those savings could disappear, whether through cuts to federal-provincial transfers or a reduction in the quality of public services following draconian cuts to certain key services. In short, these tax savings are interesting, but they will raise the cost of other services that taxpayers are entitled to receive. In essence, this tax cut is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, these tax cuts will cost $28.2 billion over five years. That is a third of the current deficit. That is a lot of money for the government, money that could have been used to build more housing and to spur the construction of sports and recreation infrastructure in the regions, while promoting the use of lumber to reduce the impact on the forestry sector. That money could have been used to provide more support for first-time homebuyers. It could have been used to increase health transfers to improve services for our constituents, particularly seniors. It is all about choices and priorities.

This bill would also have a negative impact on some taxpayers because it is poorly drafted. For example, some seniors who are subject to the alternative minimum tax would see their tax burden increase. People who are entitled to certain non-refundable credits, like the disability tax credit or the medical expense tax credit, would lose out. Roughly 60,000 people would be affected by an increase in their taxes, even though they should be entitled to this tax cut.

This brings to mind a rather special situation in Quebec in recent years. Quebec has increased the Quebec pension plan to help seniors. Because that pension income went up, the guaranteed income supplement on the federal side went down. It is the poorest people who have been hit the hardest. Instead of adjusting the calculation in Quebec, the federal government is cutting services to seniors. I can say that my office is getting calls from seniors about this.

On top of that, the Bloc Québécois had specifically asked the government to help seniors with declining incomes by increasing old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 to put them on an equal footing with those aged 75 and over. All we were really asking for is that the government stop discriminating based on age. The government decided to reject that measure after supporting it last year.

That brings me to the matter of the GST on new homes. Once again, this is a worthwhile measure with which we agree. However, we had to fight with the government, because it tried to reject our amendment that would have moved the effective date to March 20 of this year. That was the date on which the government announced its intention of eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers, but the government turned around and decided to go with the date of May 27 for its bill. Clearly, there is a lack of consistency here that created a gap, and many young families fell through it.

I would also remind the House that first-time homebuyers are by definition tenants. In Quebec, leases expire on June 30. Keeping May 27 as the date caused problems for first-time homebuyers in Quebec, who had to find someone to assign their lease to, rather than simply notify their landlord that they would not be renewing it. Our amendment served a dual purpose: It sought to ensure the government's integrity and respond to Quebec's reality.

It would also have been a good idea for this government to make interest-free loans available to first-time homebuyers, as a way to help them put together a down payment more quickly so they could access home ownership faster. This would have enabled many Quebeckers to combine the benefits of the FHSA and these types of loans in order to purchase a property. This is a simple and effective measure that poses no danger to the government. The cost would have been low, and it would have helped stimulate the economy, particularly through housing construction. At the same time, it would have helped our forestry sector.

Before I wrap up, I must address another fundamental issue raised by this bill, and that is the government's decision to eliminate carbon pricing outside of Quebec through this bill without putting forward a single credible measure for offsetting the environmental damage that will result from this decision. As the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development clearly stated, the price on pollution was one of the few elements of the federal emissions reduction plan that was really working. Eliminating it was not only an environmental error, it was a political decision that flew directly in the face of the science, the facts and possibly, in the long term, the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians. Fortunately, Quebec will continue to play a role with its carbon market with California, which is still in place.

With climate change intensifying year after year, causing forest fires, floods, droughts and coastal erosion, the timing of this decision is profoundly irresponsible. Instead of strengthening one of the few tried-and-tested tools at our disposal, the government chose to weaken it for short-term political gain. Quebec will once again pay a steep price.

I would like to draw the House's attention to a very concrete example. In the summer of 2023, the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region and northern Quebec were among the areas hardest hit by forest fires. Thousands of residents, some 5,500 people, had to be evacuated from their homes. This tragic situation was not an isolated case. All across Canada, more than 10 million hectares burned that year, smashing previous records. The devastating fire that ravaged the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region is a striking illustration of what can happen when effective climate policies are abandoned in favour of short-sighted economic decisions.

When it eliminated the carbon tax outside of Quebec, the federal government also issued so-called rebate cheques to the residents of those provinces. The cheques were intended to offset a tax that in reality no longer existed. These payments were given out in the middle of an election campaign. They were basically election handouts paid for by all Canadian taxpayers. Quebeckers did not receive any of these cheques, but they still helped pay for them. In concrete terms, this represents a direct financial loss of $814 million for Quebec taxpayers. This is money that was taken directly from the pockets of Quebeckers and given out elsewhere in Canada. That is not responsible environmental or fiscal policy. It is an unfair transfer that penalizes Quebec for having established, well ahead of the rest of the country, an efficient and consistent carbon market through the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system. The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously to call for compensation for this injustice. The Bloc Québécois made it one of its pre-budget demands. However, the federal government refused, at committee and in public, to right this wrong or even acknowledge it.

A government cannot claim to be fighting climate change seriously and then ditch the only mechanism it had that actually reduced emissions. It cannot claim to respect Quebec while taking hundreds of millions of Quebec taxpayer dollars and sending them to provinces that have chosen not to join Quebec's carbon market. True environmental responsibility demands consistency, fairness and respect for the choices of provinces that lead by example. Bill C-4 fails on each of these counts.

By rejecting this bill, we are affirming our commitment, not only to the tax fairness that Quebeckers demand, but also to a responsible and sustainable vision of the environment. We refuse to sacrifice effective climate change fighting tools, which are verified by experts and have already proven to be effective, in favour of short-term political manoeuvring. By saying no to Bill C-4, we are saying yes to a future for generations to come, yes to consistency and yes to justice for Quebec.

I hope this vote will be considered not as a mere partisan gesture, but as a moral commitment to our constituents, our land and the rights of Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is the government's position on three very important tax breaks for Canadians. That is what Bill C-4 is about: affordability and being there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians.

What is unclear is the positioning of the Bloc. I would be very interested in knowing this: Does the Bloc clearly support Bill C-4? Does it want Bill C-4 to pass before the end of the year?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I oppose Bill C-4 for obvious reasons. Yes, a cheque will be sent out that might amount to $210 for one fiscal year. However, I am a Quebec taxpayer, and scrapping the carbon tax will cost me more because health care costs are skyrocketing. Climate change is generating health care costs of $6 billion a year. That money will come out of the pockets of Quebeckers.

As for the carbon tax rebate that Canadians in the rest of Canada received, it was paid for by Quebeckers. We paid $814 million. Obviously, as a Quebec taxpayer, I am paying part of that amount, which the member for Winnipeg North will not admit.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my fellow committee member brought up a few things that the accountant in me likes to acknowledge, concerning the unintended consequences that happened with regard to the disability tax credit and to the seniors' supplement.

I am wondering if the member has any insight, from when he was looking at this, as to whether the Liberal government has actually taken into account any of the unintended consequences, if you have heard of any changes, and what you might suggest the government do with regard to these unintended consequences.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I remind members to please address comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yellowhead for his question and for the compassion and rigour he has shown on the two committees on which I serve. I really appreciate this member, especially because he talks about tax fairness in his speeches.

When it comes to seniors, I consulted with seniors in a dozen municipalities in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, including indigenous communities. The take-away from those consultations is that people feel as though they worked hard all their lives and yet many seniors are no longer able to make ends meet and have to do without. More and more seniors are couch surfing. Hidden homelessness is on the rise, and an increasing number of widows and widowers have to leave their homes because they can no longer afford to stay there. This is a very serious situation.

I do not think it would have been that difficult to increase seniors' income a little, but this government would rather cheap out on them.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, we proposed all sorts of measures to help the forestry industry. On Friday, I learned that my riding of Laurentides—Labelle will also be affected. Groupe Crête, which has three mills, just announced that it is closing its mill in Mont-Blanc for three months as of January, and yet we have solutions.

Can my colleague tell us once again what we need to do to save our forestry industry?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for emphasizing something so fundamental. Again, I will use the word cheap to describe the federal government. In Quebec, we have an industry that has been unstable for decades because of the crisis with the Americans. We are not in this situation just because of Donald Trump. This has been going on for decades because the federal government has not been doing anything about it. The government may have spent tens of millions of dollars over the years, but that is nothing compared to the tens of billions of dollars it invests in the oil and gas industry.

The forestry industry is in crisis. It needs help. The Bloc Québécois proposed that the government pay some of the countervailing duties and provide a wage subsidy to help businesses. That would have been so simple, but the federal government ignored that suggestion. It is cheap and meanwhile, people back home are losing their jobs. People throughout Quebec are losing their jobs. Temporary layoff notices are being issued just before Christmas. I think that is unacceptable. The solution is simple, and it does not involve giving another credit card to anyone about to declare bankruptcy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House, and I am very humbled to follow on from the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, with his great eloquence and the heart he puts into standing up for the residents of his region and of Quebec as a whole. I thank him very much for all he does.

As my colleague said, the Bloc Québécois is going to oppose Bill C-4. There is nothing surprising in that. Part 4 of the bill proposes amendments to the Canada Elections Act for British Columbia, which does not really concern us. In any event, we are in agreement on that matter. There is, of course, the tax on homes, with which we are also in agreement. We appreciate the changes that are being made.

There are, however, two big issues that were not changed by the government even though, as usual, the Bloc Québécois members worked like reasonable adults with the common good in mind. We proposed arrangements and amendments, but they were not accepted. We find ourselves in a position where we must oppose Bill C‑4, particularly due to the measure concerning the price on pollution. This will come as no surprise to my colleagues. I would like Canadians listening to this speech to take a moment to think. I am going to provide a fine example of the way populism can be harmful in politics.

The Conservatives and the Leader of the Opposition have succeeded so well in demonizing this measure through slogans—always repeating the same phrase, making repetitive little videos where they do not explain things and often do not even tell the truth—that this ended up taking root in the public's mind. People started saying that the carbon tax was a bad thing. However, what the Liberal government eliminated was the part that benefited those who are less well off, and that is the great irony here. Most people on lower incomes received more money back than they paid in carbon tax. By repeating all day every day that they wanted to build the homes, stop the crime and fix the budget, the Conservatives succeeded in taking money away from Canadians who are less well off. The Liberals were okay with that, as they used it to stay in power.

That is a damned good example of the dark side of what can happen in a parliament. It is incredibly sad. What makes matters worse and makes this situation even darker is the fact that the Liberals refused to pay back the $814 million they owe Quebeckers who had paid this money. This is completely unfair. To get elected, the current Prime Minister decided to pad the final cheque even though these rebates were being made in advance. People used to get a cheque every three months to compensate for what they were going to spend on carbon taxes over the next three months. Ninety per cent of the revenue collected through the carbon tax was returned to taxpayers. Not only did the Liberals yield under pressure, but they also dropped the ball on communication. It seems to me it would have been easy to defend that.

The Liberals got rid of the carbon tax and let rebate cheques go out at the beginning of the election campaign, a few days before the vote, for a tax that had already been eliminated and would not be paid. I cannot imagine that they had a right to do that. They just ended up giving out gift cards. The message the people heard was, “The generous Liberals cut us a cheque, so let us vote for them”. Money for that cheque came from the consolidated fund. The Minister of Finance or any other Liberal elected official can say what they want, but the fact is that the $814 million that Quebeckers paid into the consolidated federal fund was withdrawn and given to Canadians in the other provinces, and then they are saying that members of the Bloc Québécois are always complaining and that Quebec is part of confederation. That is but a small example of what we see each and every day. That is why Quebec needs to be independent.

This is really outrageous, and what is more, it hurts our own policies. We know that Quebec has always been forward-thinking. I apologize for saying this to my colleagues and I am sorry if that hurts them, but it is what it is. We are always ahead of the curve. We need only think about day cares, which we put in place 10 years ago. English Canada has just woken up and recognized that it is a good, so they are going to do the same.

Fortunately, this was on the eve of another election and we managed to get money for Quebec because had we been mid-way through a majority term, not only would the government have ran with our idea, but it would also have crushed our existing system and replaced it with its own because whatever comes from the federal Canada is always much better, right?

We are tired of that. Withdrawing from the environmental policy is affecting our carbon exchange. Quebec and California are the last jurisdictions in North America focusing on the future of our children and grandchildren. That is incredibly sad. I am not telling the people listening to us at home that we want to tax them or prevent them from putting gas in their cars. That is Conservative rhetoric. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that we need to put reasonable and effective incentive measures that will work over the long term. This is working well in Quebec, as evidenced by the fact that Quebec has experienced the most significant development among Canadian provinces in recent years. It is funny that we are the only province with a carbon exchange. It cannot be all that bad. Moreover, it will be even better in the future because there are places around the world, including the European Union, that will start to put limits on what comes in from outside. They could tell countries that have not paid for pollution in their own area that they will have to pay for it before they can export anything to another country. Why can we not do the same thing here? Once again, I am quickly running out of time.

Let us turn to the tax cut. Initially, we were all happy with the tax cut. No one can be against that. Inflation is high, wages have not kept up with inflation, everyone is struggling to pay ridiculously high rent and interest rates are up. The government decided to offer a tax cut, which, although small, is not a bad thing. The difference is that before we vote on a measure, we study and we analyze, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House does not seem to have done that, from what I can tell from the last question he asked my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

One thing became clear when we were analyzing this bill. I am not saying this just for the sake of it. I did not wake up one fine morning and get a light bulb moment and think it would be a good idea to say that this bill will hurt the poor or think that this would make a great argument. Other political parties do that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer—a reliable, solid and independent figure, one so independent we sometimes get the impression that the government would like to whittle away his powers—has told us the tax cut as designed is problematic for the most vulnerable individuals. Some seniors subject to the alternative minimum tax will see their tax burden go up instead of going down and some people who receive non-refundable tax credits, such as the disability tax credit, will also see their tax burden go up. How disgusting is that? People with disabilities will see their taxes go up.

It is the same thing when it comes to the medical expense tax credit. Those already burdened with high medical bills will face even greater expenses. Not all expenses will be covered and not everyone has good drug coverage. These tax credits will lose all value when calculated at the first tax bracket. This is appalling and it is disgusting. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this will impact over 60,000 people. Could the government not have made a small amendment for these 60,000 individuals by amending a subsection here and there so that they are not impacted? I guess not, because the government is moving at speed and wants to have this bill passed before Christmas so they have something to brag about around the dinner table. They will have cut taxes with a bunch of empty words that mean nothing.

There lies the problem with this Parliament. There are people here putting up appearances. Is it possible to have real content? People will say that Bloc members are the bad guys because we are voting against tax cuts. Yes, but I do not think my constituents will be angry when I tell them that the cuts amount to less than four bucks a month for the least fortunate. Those same constituents will give me 20 bucks to put in Christmas hampers, because 'tis the season of giving. Berthier—Maskinongé celebrated Noël du coeur last weekend. We raised funds for some 140 families in Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha and some 220 to 260 families in Louisville. These families will get food hampers throughout the year. Will I vote for a tax cut that will lower my own taxes and increase taxes for the least fortunate? The answer is no thanks, and better luck to them next time.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech this afternoon. I really enjoyed working with him at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when I was there.

However, I would like to set the record straight regarding what he said in his speech about the government's decision to do away with consumer carbon pricing. We mainly did that to support bilingual people, respond to the needs of rural residents and protect vulnerable families who were worse off. That is exactly why the government replaced this measure with a tax cut in this bill. This measure is very important for Canadian and Quebec families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants, who I really appreciate. He was right to bring this up, but I think that he is going to be disappointed with what I have to say. There are two things.

First, when he says that the government eliminated carbon pricing for individuals to replace it with something else, that is false, because it was not replaced with anything. No new environmental measures have been introduced. On the contrary, the Prime Minister has wiped out so many environmental measures that the architect of his environmental policies stepped down last week. It is a big deal when the environment minister steps down. I refuse to believe that this tax was replaced with something else.

It was replaced with a small tax cut of $200, or $4 a month, for less fortunate individuals. The main reason why my colleague and others agreed to it was that they were at risk of losing their ridings to Conservatives. That is the real reason when it comes right down to it. They realized that they had to get rid of the carbon tax in order to keep their jobs.

I would rather lose my job on a matter of principle than change a policy that is so important for the country.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech and on the comments he just made, but I would still like to ask him the following question.

The so-called architect of environmental policies that he mentioned earlier—obviously referring to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie—was there six months ago when the government decided to get rid of the carbon tax. He was there when the government introduced and voted for Bill C-5, which allowed for last week's announcements.

Did the architect's conscience finally catch up to him, well after all the things he did in the past? We must not forget that he was elected by the people of his riding with a 17,000-vote majority after getting rid of the carbon tax, this government's flagship environmental measure.