Debates of June 10th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to Quebec

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

Madam Speaker, there is no trickery here, just a new Prime Minister and a new government.

The new Prime Minister indicated that we would get rid of the carbon tax. It made sense that we would not cancel the rebate 28 days later, when Canadians had been incorporating those rebates as part of their budget. I am amazed the Bloc members are not thinking of those individuals, in particular the seniors who were dependent on it, individuals on fixed incomes and many others. For the member to say that it has anything to do with any form of trickery, I think, is disingenuous.

It would have been cruel for the Prime Minister to not move forward with those rebates. The question I would ask the member is, does he not recognize the value of the rebate cheques that were anticipated in April?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where to begin. That is such a patchwork of nonsense that it is fascinating.

The member for Winnipeg North knows full well that these rebates were sent out at the beginning of each quarter. It was not money that had already been spent, but money in anticipation of the expenses that would be incurred due to the carbon tax, and he knows that very well.

Seniors in Quebec are also struggling to make ends meet. As long as the Liberals are engaging in vote-seeking ploys like this and sending cheques to everyone, why not also include Quebec's seniors, since my colleague seems so concerned about them?

Seriously, the Liberals need to stop spouting nonsense and start telling the truth. That money was paid for in large part from Quebeckers' taxes, not from the carbon tax that was charged before April 1.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election and on his speech.

I would like to remind the House that everything he mentioned was known to Quebeckers. From my perspective, his leader ran a very good campaign. That is what I think. Politically, we are not friends, but I know talent and hard work when I see it. He did not make any major mistakes in his election campaign. Despite everything, the party that this member represents was hit particularly hard by the Liberal Party of Canada and lost about 10 seats.

During the leaders' debate, the leader of the Bloc Québécois even raised the issue directly with the Prime Minister. Despite that, Quebeckers elected 44 Liberal members in Quebec. How does my colleague think that happened?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say it is because of the fear that was carefully stoked throughout the election campaign for political reasons. That fear was stoked by a team that wanted to win the election and who knew full well that seniors and the most vulnerable members of our society would be afraid...

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

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Shefford has the floor.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion, which states that "the House call on the government to pay Quebec, without conditions, an amount equivalent to its contribution to the $3.7 billion in spending, estimated at $814 million."

This Bloc Québécois motion seeks to quickly and easily correct a financial injustice to Quebec and Quebec taxpayers. First, I will explain the source of that injustice. Second, I will talk about the Liberals' lack of economic credibility, and third, I will explain why this sends the wrong message when it comes to the fight against climate change.

First, the new Prime Minister, who had recently been chosen to lead the Liberal Party of Canada, but was still unelected, decided to end the federal fuel tax by regulation on March 15, 2025. He probably got the idea from the executive orders signed by the president of the country south of the border. This is how things are done now.

This injustice stems from the government's decision to grant cash payments to Canadian households, except those in Quebec. This decision was made in April 2025, specifically between April 22 and election day, which was April 28. The timing was convenient. The cheques sent to Canadians ranged from $220 to $456. These amounts are similar to what Quebeckers have received in the past from their own government to help them cope with inflation and the rising cost of living. Lo and behold, when the federal government takes action for similar reasons and does so during a federal election, as if by chance, Quebeckers are left out of the group of lucky recipients of government cheques.

The reason that the government gave for the payment was the elimination of a policy, namely carbon pricing, which was paid by consumers in Canada, but not those in Quebec, before April 1, 2025. The government used a poor excuse to keep Quebeckers from receiving the election cheques it issued to Canadian voters. In fact, the federal fuel charge paid by consumers at the pump did not apply in Quebec. That is what the government said, but Quebeckers consequently never received what is known as the Canada carbon rebate, or CCR, which was the cheque paid four times a year to individuals. This was to offset the fuel charge.

However, when the last CCR cheques were issued, Canadian consumers had not paid the fuel charge that the rebate was supposed to offset. As I said earlier, the rebate was always paid in advance of the period when the charge, which some people call "the tax", was collected. This means that the $3.7 billion in CCR cheques that were issued in April were not funded by carbon pricing applied to Canadian consumers. Canadians never paid the amounts that they received.

Second, this issue helps fuel cynicism and has led to what are now known as the Liberals' Harry Potter budgets. The $3.7 billion in question came straight out of the government coffers. This public money belongs to Quebeckers too, and part of it comes from their taxes. That means that the Liberal Prime Minister's vote-buying cheques for Canadians outside Quebec were funded in part by Quebeckers, who did not receive them.

What is more, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling on all federal political parties to commit to giving Quebec back its share of that payment, which it estimates to be over $800 million, with no strings attached. However, the Liberal Prime Minister refused to commit to responding to the National Assembly's request. The Liberal leader not only refused to recognize that the last round of rebate cheques came from public funds, but he also sidestepped the issue by talking about something that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, namely, his election promise to lower taxes.

If we add to that Canada's decision to abandon the carbon tax, this poses a threat to Quebec's economy. I have been hearing about it from businesses in Shefford. Right now, they want to diversify their export markets, and Europe is implementing a carbon border adjustment mechanism for goods coming from irresponsible countries like Canada. During the election campaign, the government promised to increase the carbon tax for large industrial emitters. However, there is nothing about that in Bill C‑4. As of January 1, the European Union will impose an import tax on goods produced in countries where it is free to pollute or where the cost to pollute is not high enough. With Donald Trump making access to the American market uncertain, now is not the time to cut off our access to the European market.

As I was saying, Bill C‑4 now proposes to formalize this decision by completely removing the Canada carbon rebate from federal legislation. By doing so, Canada is choosing to go back to the 20th century. If it scraps or reduces carbon pricing for industries, it will undermine Quebec's efforts to diversify its exports and increase its trade with Europe. Since Quebec businesses are part of a country with low carbon pricing or none at all, there is a risk that their exports will be taxed.

Both the European Union and the U.K. have put in place a system of exemptions. If an exporter comes from a country with no or low carbon pricing, they can be exempted from the tax if they can demonstrate that their emissions have actually been priced.

The Bloc Québécois will oppose any federal measure that would thwart Quebec's efforts to diversify its export markets to counter the negative effects of the Trump administration. It will therefore also oppose any reduction in industrial emissions pricing in Canada outside Quebec, which would reduce Quebec's comparative advantage. That is because Quebec accounts for one-third of Canada-Europe trade and accounts for nearly 40% of European investments in Canada. Quebec certainly has an advantage, and it is a bridge between North America and Europe. The Bloc Québécois hopes that Quebec will be able to double its trade with Europe, including the UK, within five years, increasing it from $42 billion to $84 billion.

Third, we must point out that this request from the Bloc Québécois is just a modest request to correct an obvious one-time injustice. We will then need to deal with the real root problem created by getting rid of carbon pollution pricing in Canada. One concrete example of that problem is, first, the obvious inequity between Quebeckers and the rest of Canada when it comes to prices at the pump. It should be noted that, of all the existing pricing systems in Canada, the Quebec carbon market had the lowest impact on gas prices. That simply means that Quebec's policy was better designed than Canada's. We are reducing greenhouse gas emissions while imposing fewer impacts on consumers than the federal policy did.

That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly reminded the House that any provinces or territories that were unhappy with the federal policy were already free to opt out and either create their own system or join the Quebec‑California carbon market. That invitation was officially extended by the Government of Quebec itself.

Canada can change the terms of its pollution pricing policy if it realizes that its old system was too complex and too costly. However, getting rid of carbon pricing is another matter entirely. Obviously, it is causing price distortions and creating an inequitable situation with respect to Quebec. The federal government can no longer continue to support the unacceptable situation it has created, despite repeated warnings from the Bloc Québécois, where there is such a big price difference between gas purchased in Quebec and gas purchased outside Quebec. This adverse effect of the federal government's decision to scrap federal carbon pricing ends up punishing Quebec for having the wisdom to adopt a good carbon pollution pricing system.

For at least three years now, the Bloc Québécois has been pointing out these negative effects, explaining why it was not in the best interest of Quebec and Quebeckers for the federal government to do away with its carbon pricing in the rest of Canada. However, that did not stop Quebec Conservative MPs from supporting their leader's lies and using every possible, often desperate, means to convince Quebeckers that it was in their best interest to axe the carbon tax. It is now clear to everyone that it was not and that the Bloc Québécois was right to warn people against the Conservatives' claims about carbon pricing.

It did not stop the Liberal Party of Canada from bowing to the success of Conservative propaganda in swaying public opinion in Canada and destroying its own climate record, either. This is a fact recognized by all experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Carbon pricing gave Canadian households about 90% of the revenues generated by the pricing system. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, eight out of 10 Canadians actually received a larger rebate that what they paid in carbon fees. Only the wealthiest paid a bit more than what they paid at the pump. This system, we must remember, was used to fund a federal policy that in the most effective way produced real reductions in greenhouse gases and truly contributed to the decarbonization of the economy.

In conclusion, in addition to sabotaging their own climate policy and making it even less likely that Canada will honour its international climate commitments, the Liberals also managed to instantly perpetrate an economic and financial injustice on Quebec consumers and taxpayers. We must therefore rebuild Canada's climate policy without delay and rid ourselves of the oil sector's propaganda and lies. I am not exaggerating when I say that the flaws in the Liberals' logic are obvious here, making it impossible for the Liberal government to rationalize its decision. The Prime Minister's response confirms that Quebec is being treated unjustly, so the Bloc Québécois is wholly justified in moving its motion today in the House to correct an injustice that indicates the government's desire to fight climate change is waning.

I want to say one last thing. All the federal parties want to scale back carbon pricing for purely electoral reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point about the global market situation. This is something that we as a government have recognized. We continue to maintain the industrial tax to ensure that Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs remain competitive, as we look at ways to bring in technology to reduce emissions. That is, in fact, in the best interests of Canadians as a whole.

I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes it is important that we continue to ensure, given the global market and trade, that we have clean energy and move toward advancing technology to reduce emissions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a green and eco-friendly transition is obviously what we should be pursuing. Funding pipelines and oil companies will not achieve that transition.

I forgot to say something in my speech. In 2023, the World Bank enumerated 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. That is five more than in 2022, 12 more than in 2021 and 69 more than 20 years ago.

At the end of the day, if Canada does this, it will be the first to choose this path. That is not in everyone's interest, because we want to remain competitive internationally and expand into new markets.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about an issue that arose during the last election.

The Prime Minister tried to buy the votes of Canadians with the carbon tax rebate. He tried to influence the media. For example, he announced over $150 million for the CBC. I think that there has to be consequences for doing such a thing.

What does the member think?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, she is talking about consequences.

She is talking about spending. What concerns me at the moment is that the government is announcing spending, without any explanation of where the funds will come from. The government is not tabling a budget or an economic update. That is why I talked in my speech about a Harry Potter budget.

As I said earlier, I met the hon. Lloyd Axworthy yesterday. He is not exactly a member of the Bloc, and yet he has spoken out about this situation. The Liberals are not tabling a budget and they announced a tax cut and a vote-buying cheque that was supposedly a carbon tax rebate. He spoke out against that by saying that this showed a total lack of economic credibility.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for years, the Conservatives have been advocating for the elimination of the carbon tax. When we asked the Liberals questions, they laughed at us and said that we were against science and in favour of global warming and more wildfires.

In December, they voted down our motion to eliminate the carbon tax. Now they have done an about-face.

What does the Bloc Québécois think about this about-face just before the election?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like a desperate move. It seems like a government on its last legs that miscalculated the impact of the fear caused by the U.S. election that put Donald Trump in office.

The impression that I got on the ground during the election campaign was that, amid all this turmoil, voters really did not support the Conservative leadership choice they were being given. At the same time, they had questions. I do not think that Canadians voted for this. We can see it in what was promised during the election campaign. The Liberals did an about-face after that. They are backing down on their decisions and doing things that they did not talk about during the campaign.

I think that people were sold a bill of goods in this election.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting, listening to the arguments that have been presented already this morning. I find a lot of irony in it. On the one hand, we often get the Bloc talking about the importance of supporting our seniors, while we also get the Conservatives talking about election gimmicks or trickery and things of that nature. I would like to highlight a few very important points here. First and foremost, we should recognize there is a new Prime Minister. It is a new government. What we have seen are, in fact, significant changes as a direct result of a new government.

The member from the Bloc talked about the support. In this last election, the Prime Minister and the candidates, combined, achieved 8.5 million votes. That is a record number of votes for any political party in the history of Canada. That was because Canadians understood what was at stake. They also recognized there was a new Prime Minister. I will get into that whole aspect shortly. Before I do that, I do want to acknowledge the Province of Quebec and the Province of British Columbia for their efforts in dealing with emissions. They have provided leadership to other jurisdictions here in Canada.

Going back into Canada's history, the first province to do so was your own home province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. In North America, out of all the provinces and the states, it might have been one of the top three jurisdictions that recognized we have to get control over emissions and brought in a form of a carbon tax on emissions. That was many years ago, under a Progressive Conservative provincial government; we need to underline the word “progressive”. The issue of having polluters pay is not necessarily new, per se. I think it is time that we revisit history in terms of what has led us to the point where we are today.

Back in 2015, there was a major policy discussion on the environment in Paris. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau and provincial delegates all went to Paris along with other countries from around the world. Out of that conference came the idea of having a consumer price on pollution. It was widely supported by provincial entities in Canada and opposition parties, except for the Conservatives. I should not say the Conservatives opposed it; they were actually quiet on the issue.

Then we went into that first election in 2019, where they had a leader who was, again, kind of silent on the issue but gave the impression that they would be supportive. Then it was the Hon. Erin O'Toole, who ultimately came across and incorporated it into his platform, that a consumer price on carbon was in fact a good idea. Every political party inside the House of Commons, every member of Parliament, with no exceptions, ultimately ran on a campaign in advance of a carbon tax on pollution.

Then the Conservatives had a new leader elected, a new leader and a new Conservative Party. That was when we started to hear about axing the tax. As he travelled the country, he talked about how Canada was broken. A big part of that was to axe the tax.

[An hon. member]

You copied it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says we copied it. Generally speaking, back in January, Justin Trudeau stepped aside as leader of the Liberal Party to facilitate a leadership convention. It has been recorded that I indicated Canadians wanted to see change back in January, and because of Justin Trudeau's decision to step aside, it created an opportunity for the Liberal Party of Canada to change from within so we could meet the change that Canadians wanted to see. Then the current Prime Minister stepped up to the plate.

After the many discussions and reflections with Liberals in every region of the country, which gave a true reflection of Canadians as a whole, today's Prime Minister made it very clear that there was no consensus at all in having a consumer price on carbon. Remember that the Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Liberal Party back on March 9. It was within a week, on March 14 give or take, that he indicated the consumer price on carbon was no more. It was a reflection of what Canadians were feeding to the Liberal Party, and there was in fact a mood for change.

If we fast-forward a couple of weeks later, we were into an election and the carbon tax was not being collected, as the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party had decreed. Many individuals in Canada, in the provinces where the consumer carbon tax was being applied, were anticipating a rebate, and justifiably so. This is why I referred to seniors. I do not know how many times in the past Bloc members have stood up and said that a caring government would take care of our seniors. We need to think of the number of seniors and low-income individuals on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, the unemployed and others who would have budgeted for the rebate. The carbon tax was cancelled on April 1, and many constituents in my home province were not expecting the new Prime Minister to say they needed to forget it; they were not going to get the rebate. It would have been highly irresponsible for the Prime Minister to do that.

That is the essence of what has taken place from the moment of the Paris conference to where we are today. The Prime Minister has formed a new government with all sorts of priorities that focus on building a stronger, healthier Canada, a Canada, from an economic perspective, that will be the strongest in the G7. That is our goal. That is the mandate that Canadians have given us based on what the Prime Minister talked about during the last federal election, and every single member of the Liberal caucus is committed to working toward building a stronger and healthier Canada.

There are initiatives that we have put in place. One of my colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, made reference to Bill C-4. We are still waiting for the Conservatives and the Bloc to say they support the bill and would like to advance it. The Conservatives and Bloc members are a little uneasy, asking why the Liberals cannot support Canadians more.

The legislation would do three major things.

Number one is completely relevant to today's discussion: The consumer carbon tax is in fact in the law, but Bill C-4 would take it out of the law. It would no longer be a part of Canadian law. I see that as a very strong positive. It is what the newly elected Prime Minister committed to, to Canadians, and it is incorporated into Bill C-4. One would think that everyone, given the last election, would support that aspect of the legislation.

The other aspect of the legislation would decrease the tax bracket by one percentage point. In essence, for a two-income family of four or five, I believe it is about $840, give or take, that they can maximize because of that particular tax break, which is also incorporated into the legislation. When I ask members, I am not hearing from anyone who opposes that aspect of the legislation.

Then there is the final component of the three. Again, these are reflections based on what was being said in the last federal election. One would anticipate and expect that we would get the support, because of the mandate that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party were given. First-time homebuyers have to pay GST. Well, this legislation would eliminate the GST when they build that home under $1 million, or on that first $1 million. We want to see more homes built, and we want to empower more young people to be able to afford to build a home. That is my understanding, and that is what this aspect of the legislation would do. Again, I would have thought it would receive unanimous support.

Whether it is getting rid of the consumer carbon tax and taking it out of the law, giving Canadians a tax break or supporting young people in buying their first home, which were all talked about and, I believe, are supported, still there is no indication from opposition members as to their willingness to see this legislation pass.

We have a Bloc motion before us today that is focused on one aspect. It is important to recognize that, whether it is British Columbia or Quebec, because it is not a Quebec-only issue, they did not have the backstop for the consumer price on pollution; it only makes sense that we are talking about those provinces and territories that actually participated in it. The motion is somewhat narrow in terms of what it is specifically asking. I think we have to take a look at the broader picture. This is a government that is not saying no to the environment.

People are genuinely concerned about our environment. We often talk about emissions, controls, targets and so forth. When I am knocking on doors and talking to constituents, the type of environmental issues that often come up are those consumer-oriented ones. I remember talking to someone about roof shingles, as an example. There was a time when we would get a big truck pulling up with a trailer; they would strip off the roof shingles, bring them over to the dump yard and have to pay to dump them. Through technology, we now see that used shingles are used in many different ways. A certain percentage can be incorporated into asphalt, so they are being used in a way that is advantageous. It is something in which people can actually see the difference.

When I was an MLA, I was a big fan of banning plastic bags, because if we were to google “plastic bags in trees”, we would see that they will be there for years. With provincial jurisdiction, what provinces can do, there are initiatives that provinces can take. Provinces do matter. The best example that comes to mind in terms of environmental issues is cans and bottles, especially when I talk to young people, because they too want to be engaged in the environment.

I would look at the province of Alberta. Much as Quebec and B.C. lead on the pricing of carbon, and have done so for many years, I think Alberta has a great program, unless it has changed more recently. Alberta gets a high percentage of containers returned for recycling purposes, in contrast to Manitoba, unless Manitoba has changed very recently. It is virtually night and day. In Alberta, there is an incentive to return an item, and it does make a difference.

It is important for government to recognize that it has a role to play in supporting the environment. We can set ambitious goals and try to achieve them. I have seen budgetary measures, as we all have, from the previous administration, which provided financial incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. This is something real and tangible; people can really appreciate that.

Equally important is the issue of emissions, even if we are not hearing it at the doors as much, at least in the area I represent. That is why, even though we have gotten rid of the consumer price on carbon, we are keeping the industrial carbon pricing mechanism. It is interesting that the Conservatives are being critical of us for wanting to keep it; in fact, the Conservative caucus in Alberta should revisit why the province of Alberta was actually one of the pioneers in North America in recognizing the benefits of industrial carbon pricing.

My friend from the Bloc made reference to a very good argument about why we need to have an industrial carbon pricing mechanism. It is that, when we think of world trade and markets, which were talked about to a great extent in the last federal election, we need to be able to advance the issue of industrial carbon pricing and how we can co-operate with industries to develop the technology to make our environment healthier in order for Canada, our manufacturers and others to be competitive into the future.

All one needs to do is take a look at some of the European nations. Today, if countries do not have some form of industrial carbon pricing, often, a tariff is applied to a product. How do Canadians benefit from that? The Conservatives are going to try to tie it into something that it is not. If we are concerned about world trade going forward, we need to have industrial carbon pricing in place, and big polluters should pay.

I see you are signalling to me that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I hope I will get a few questions that will allow me to highlight a couple of other points.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a wonder that, for years, Canadians were told that we must have a carbon tax. The Liberals told them and told them. Magically, as if by magic, just before an election, suddenly, poof, it disappears.

I am wondering if my Liberal friend across the aisle would admit that were it not for Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, Canadians would still be saddled with an onerous, hated carbon tax, and that this whole thing was nothing but an election ploy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member to talk to Erin O'Toole, a former leader of the Conservative Party, who was very much a big fan of having a consumer price on carbon. By the way, many of the hon. member's colleagues ran under his leadership.

We have a new leader, a new Prime Minister. That new Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue from day one, since he became prime minister. I support what the Prime Minister is saying, that we cannot have a consumer price on carbon if the general feeling among the Canadian population is that it is not the way to go.

As a result, the Prime Minister continues to emphasize industrial carbon pricing, because that is the right thing to do. With Bill C-4, we are also taking the corrective action to get rid of the price—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague's speech because it is a real farce. He is telling us that his government is still keen on fighting climate change after it eliminated the carbon tax for individuals and after one of the first things that the Prime Minister did once he was elected was to meet with the oil and gas companies. Now the government has tabled Bill C-5, which will give any minister responsible for the Major Projects Management Office the discretion to exempt any oil project from environmental standards. That makes no sense.

To get back to today's motion, what we want is to be reimbursed for the $814 million that Quebec paid to the rest of Canada while it still had a carbon exchange program. What message is the government sending when it decides to issue cheques for a tax that people are not paying, and when it makes people who are still fighting climate change pay for those cheques?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada are sending a very strong message. That message is based on what we were hearing with regard to the last federal election, on April 28, which is that we have to build one Canadian economy.

We have to deal with Donald Trump, the tariffs and the whole issue of trade. We have to look at ways in which we can expand our world trade opportunities. We have to protect wherever we can and enhance jobs. It does not matter whether it is in the province of Quebec, my home province of Manitoba or any other jurisdiction in Canada.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a new kid in the chamber. I have only spent the last four decades or so in business in my riding. One of the reasons I decided to run in the last election was the carbon tax. What I find really interesting is that the parliamentary secretary said that business needs to have a carbon tax in order to be competitive. I can tell members that when we are paying 30% of our gas bill in carbon taxes, we are not competitive. When we are trying to be competitive on an international scale, that tax is punitive.

I want to know if the member would tell me what the moment was when he had the epiphany, because he stood up for 16 months, as I was campaigning, defending the carbon tax.

When did that moment arrive in which he, all of a sudden, decided that we do not need a carbon tax anymore?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when Justin Trudeau made the decision to step aside, it provided the Liberal Party of Canada with the ability to do something Canadians wanted. Canadians wanted to see change. The consumer carbon tax was a part of that. I indicated to party members and would-be leadership candidates that we needed to have a thorough discussion about the consumer carbon tax.

I was very pleased when our current Prime Minister recognized what Canadians were saying on the issue and then made a decisive decision to get rid of the consumer price on carbon. I would think the Conservative Party would be grateful to see that the Liberal Party was able to succeed in getting that change and getting rid of the price on carbon.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as it is the first time I am rising in this House with you in the chair, I want to congratulate you on your position.

The member opposite gave a lot to unpack, but the thing that stuck out the most to me was how he mentioned it would be unfair to Canadians who were relying on that payment, because they budgeted for it. This tells me the member opposite understands the importance of budgets and sees that they are timely and that they matter.

I am just wondering, why is the member opposite content with his government not tabling a spring budget? How come he is not asking for and demanding it, if he believes budgets are so important?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper was elected in February and waited months, going into May, before he presented his first budget after the election. Brian Mulroney actually waited 300 days before he presented his first budget. Pierre Poilievre, in the Conservatives' own election platform, did not even commit to presenting a budget in the first 100 days.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party has a double standard, and this is just a crux. The member opposite, along with every Conservative member, voted in favour of the ways and means. They should read the document, where we get a good sense of where the money is going. I thank them for voting for the government; it was a vote of confidence, and we appreciate it.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would the member have supported our amendment? It called for the motion to be amended by deleting the words "without conditions" and "estimated at $814 million" and, in the last paragraph, by replacing the word "Quebec" with "Quebeckers and British Columbians" and adding the following: "when the Government of Quebec ends its cap-and-trade system to compensate Quebeckers who have paid for and are still paying for that system".