Debates of June 10th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to Quebec

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois, which raises concerns about the carbon rebate that was paid out in April 2025. Let us start with the facts.

First, the April 2025 rebate was not a surprise announcement, contrary to what some might suggest. It was not a one-time election initiative, but the continuation, and also the conclusion, of a federal policy that was well established and that we have heard a lot about in the House. The carbon rebate was put in place to return federal fuel charge proceeds directly to households in the territories and provinces where the tax applied. The structure has always been the same: Revenues collected in one province or territory were returned to that same province or territory.

When the federal fuel charge was removed, on April 1, 2025, our government chose to make a final payment. Canadians who had paid the tax until that point were counting on that rebate. This payment was a matter of good governance. The federal government honoured its commitment. Household financial management requires predictability, so that is what a responsible government provides.

More than 10 years ago, Quebec made the decision to implement its own carbon pricing system under a cap-and-trade system, which is designed and managed entirely by the Government of Quebec. Quebec collects its own revenue and reinvests it according to its own priorities. This system, which Quebec linked with California's system through the Western Climate Initiative, has been recognized internationally as a credible and ambitious model. Thanks to this success, Quebec has never been subject to the federal fuel tax and, as a result, Quebeckers have never received the Canada carbon rebate, nor have people in British Columbia or the Northwest Territories.

It is not an exclusion. It is the result of a respectful division of powers within our federation. Quebec exercised its right to manage climate policy under its jurisdiction, and our government fully accepted and supported Quebeckers' choice. To now suggest that Quebec should be compensated for a program that it did not participate in undermines the very autonomy that the Bloc Québécois is trying to protect.

The Bloc Québécois motion evokes a province that has been abandoned, but nothing could be further from the truth. Across the country, the federal government tailors its investments to each province's unique needs and systems. This is not only appropriate, it is essential, as my colleague from Mount Royal demonstrated. Some agreements are asymmetrical. I will elaborate on that with a few examples of programs that are not the same across Canada.

In Alberta, the federal government helps cover the cost of decommissioning orphan wells. British Columbia has received funding for wildfire adaptation and the clean energy transition. Ontario has seen significant investments in electric vehicle and battery production. Quebec, for its part, has received billions of dollars in federal investments, not via the carbon tax rebate, but via direct support for clean innovation, electrification, manufacturing and public infrastructure. These investments are tailored to the needs of the provinces and recognize Quebec's leadership on climate and economic planning.

If we want to have an honest debate about fairness, we need to start by defining what fairness really means in a federation. Fairness does not mean treating all jurisdictions the same, regardless of context. It means recognizing that there are differences within the federation, respecting the choices of different provinces and territories, and ensuring that outcomes reflect decisions.

Quebec has chosen to keep its carbon revenues. It has chosen to manage its own system, and it is doing so very well. In a country like Canada, fairness means proportionality and consistency. It does not mean rewriting history to provide equivalent payments for different contributions. The rebates in question were paid to those who bore the cost of the federal carbon tax and to them alone. This is not special treatment; it is integrity in public policy.

Canadians across the country want governments that respect their decisions, honour their commitments and get results. The Bloc Québécois motion fails on all these counts. It disregards Quebec's autonomy, it misrepresents how the federal system works, and it sows confusion where there should be clarity.

Our government remains committed to working with Quebec and all provinces to fight climate change, grow our economy, and uphold the principles of federalism. We will continue to develop a strategic framework that rewards integrity, consistency and leadership. The debate should not be about who gets what cheque, but instead about how we support all Canadians in all the provinces in a way that reflects their choices, respects their institutions, and prepares us for tomorrow's challenges.

Canadians and Quebeckers do not want squabbling between different levels of government, especially at this time. They want progress, a partnership and serious, results-oriented leadership rooted in principles that respect their decisions.

That is fairness, that is federalism, and that is the way forward.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite surprising to hear my colleague say that we in the Bloc Québécois do not respect Quebec's autonomy because we are asking for money that was wrongfully taken from Quebec. Let us be clear: Quebec was robbed of $800 million. It is not true that this tax was paid by Canadians through the carbon pricing system. We have demonstrated this extensively. Quebec was robbed.

I think it is odd that my colleague's only response is to say that we do not understand how federalism works. I find that quite rich.

Quebec accounts for 22% of the Canadian population. Is my colleague, who is from Quebec, proud that her government took $800 million from Quebeckers and distributed it across Canada without anyone in Quebec benefiting? That represents $10 million for her riding. Is she proud of that?

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to point out that many of us on this side of the House come from Quebec. We are proud to represent Quebec's interests, and we fight every day here in Ottawa to achieve the best outcomes for Quebeckers. We will continue to do so.

I will give another example that my colleague may have seen in recent years. We signed an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec on housing. Under this agreement, we gave $900 million to Quebec, and Quebec contributed the same amount, for a total of $1.8 billion in investments in housing in Quebec. This is money that was not spent elsewhere in the country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague in favour of building an oil pipeline to free up our Canadian natural resources and put Canada first?

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we currently have an outstanding plan to build a Canadian economy. First, we need to break down barriers between the provinces, which is an unique initiative that should have been done a long time ago. Second, we need a plan to ensure that Canada is a superpower, especially when it comes to energy.

All the initiatives we are going to undertake will move forward with the agreement of all levels of government. Once the provinces and territories agree on a project that has been submitted, that project can move forward quickly thanks to the new bill we introduced to build one Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend made reference to building one Canadian economy, and I would like to continue with that.

One of the things that I think of in the province of Quebec is the aerospace industry. The aerospace industry is virtually second to no other. It has so much potential in the province of Quebec. That is why it is so critically important that we put much more focus on how we could use industrial carbon pricing as a way to ensure that Quebec would be able to compete in and grow the aerospace industry.

Could the hon. member provide any thoughts about the importance of the aerospace industry to the province of Quebec?

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who recognizes just how much of a leader Quebec is in the aerospace industry.

Quebec is also a leader in artificial intelligence. We are going to need these skills in the coming years to build the economy we are talking about. I would like to add something else: In my region, a lot of people are employed by the automotive and rubber industries. I think that we will be able to develop the rubber industry over the next few years to take advantage of upcoming opportunities. We are building one Canadian economy, because we are removing barriers between the provinces and bringing our economy and our investments back to Canada in order to manufacture at home, process at home and create value at home. All regions will benefit, including Quebec and the riding of Compton-Stanstead. I thank the people of Waterville TG, who will likely benefit from all this.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I am sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

I have been listening to my Liberal colleagues respond to our motion since early this morning. I will not repeat what has already been said. We know where that $800 million comes from. All my colleagues made themselves hoarse trying to make the government understand that it gave out rebates for a tax that was not collected. The government turned a deaf ear. I will not repeat what has already been said. I think there is too much repetition.

However, I am struck by something and I must come back to the role of an MP. What is an MP's role? In my opinion, it is to represent the interests of our constituents. I represent the interests of the people of Jonquière and the people of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean and the people of Quebec. It is my duty. I cannot understand, then, seeing Quebec MPs rising and speaking against the interests of Quebeckers and acting in a way that deprives the people of Quebec of $800 million. I cannot understand that. I do not know how my Liberal colleagues can do that.

My Liberal colleague pointed out earlier that there are many government members from Quebec who are proud Quebeckers. There is something that sticks out for me. I often get the impression that Quebec members are too closely following the slogan that emerged during the election campaign: “Canada first”. The Conservatives said it. The Liberals also used it during the election campaign. Unfortunately, when a thorny issue arises that affects Quebec, my Liberal colleagues are completely silent. I believe that when they do that, they are not acting like a member of Parliament who represents their constituents, but instead like a lackey, a hack, someone who is subservient and unable to defend the principles that should guide their political action.

We saw this at a defining moment. We saw Quebec members rise up in the 1990s because Quebec had been told no by the federal government, and that created the Bloc Québécois. Once they get tired of being let down by the federal government, perhaps those on the Liberal side and on the Conservative side will rise up. Mysteriously, we saw earlier that even among the Conservatives, there are those trampling a bit on Quebec's autonomy. The requested amendment tabled by the Conservatives basically said that all the Quebec government had to do was to end its carbon exchange and then it could receive a rebate, like the others. This is quite surprising. It is the federal government telling Quebec how to act. It is that tired old idea that Ottawa knows best.

That gets me thinking. Why not unpack the many injustices and inequities the federal government has perpetrated on Quebec? Why not, since that is what happened? The federal government robbed Quebec of $800 million. Let me paint a picture before I get to the inequities. In March, Santé Québec cut $800 million. I bring this up not because I want to get into a debate that belongs in the Quebec National Assembly, but because I want to demonstrate the potential consequences. Consider the Government of Quebec's infrastructure plan for social and community housing from 2024 to 2034. It includes 26 projects worth roughly $928 million. The federal government shortchanged us and, as a result, key services in Quebec, such as social housing and health care, will pay the price.

Let us turn to the federal government's historical injustices and inequities. Without a doubt, one of the most glaring inequities is the fiscal imbalance. My colleagues know how this works. Virtually all public services provided to citizens of Quebec are provided by the Government of Quebec. That includes health care and education. Most services are provided by the Government of Quebec, but the federal government occupies 60% of the tax field. For the federal government, the logic is straightforward: it takes in lots of revenue, but has few expenses. Its fiscal situation is much better than that of the provinces, which means that the federation operates using a transfer system, such as the health transfers we all know and love. While we are at it, we could discuss the Liberals' thinking in 1995 and 1996, around the time of the referendum.

I am talking about Paul Martin and the fiscal imbalance, one of the worst injustices ever seen. Mr. Martin repeatedly cut approximately $2 billion in transfer payments, which completely disrupted Quebec's health care system. We are used to seeing this from the federal government and seeing Quebec's elected officials accept the unacceptable and act like lackeys. That brings me to today. The Quebec government's share of health care funding is about 45% of its budget, which is just crazy.

I want to take a closer look at this. Many analysts were quick to say that the Quebec government's austerity measures were the result of the federal government's total withdrawal from transfer payments. That is what fiscal imbalance does. That is the historical injustice and inequity that is repeating itself. Here is another example today with the controversial $800 million.

There is this injustice of the fiscal imbalance, but there is also a flagrant structural injustice, which we are seeing again today. Two sectors of the Canadian economy are top of mind: the automotive sector and the oil and gas sector. In the past, the federal government has always been there when it came to making meaningful investments to support the automotive and oil and gas sectors.

In the tariff crisis, I see something similar to what happened in 2008, which members probably remember. At the time, the federal government invested $8 billion in the automotive sector to help it get through the crisis. Of the $8 billion that was used to directly support the auto industry, about $1.6 billion went to Quebec. At the same time, in 2008, there was also an unprecedented crisis in Quebec's forestry sector. However, we never saw the federal government pay attention to and help the forestry sector.

In 2025, we are seeing the same pattern. There is a tariff crisis. What did the Liberal government do during the election campaign? It interrupted its campaign. It did so because the crisis affected the auto sector. It quickly wrote cheques totalling $4 billion. It is the same as in 2008. However, what did the federal government do when a 50% tariff was imposed on aluminum? What has the federal government done while the forestry industry has been struggling under tariffs since 2017? Absolutely nothing. It is a double standard.

In the oil and gas sector, it is even more egregious. Between 1970 and 2015, to ensure the oil sands turned a profit, it is believed the federal government invested approximately $70 billion. However, the government made absolutely no meaningful investments over a similar period to support industries in Quebec. Worse still, if we look at the current period, the government purchased a $34‑billion pipeline that Quebeckers will never use. There are tax breaks totalling as much as $82 billion if we use the 2024-35 time frame in the most recent budgets. All of that has gone to support the fat cats in the oil and gas sector, who made record profits of $200 billion in 2022.

When I look at that, I tell myself in all sincerity that it is quite simple: the Liberals and the Conservatives always do the same thing. Before the election campaign, the Conservatives pushed the narrative that the cost of living would go up if we did not axe the carbon tax, and that people would suffer as a result. The Liberals used the tariff crisis to end the carbon tax, saying they had to take action and do something. Only Quebec maintained carbon pricing. Only Quebec will be competitive if Canada wants to trade with Europe, because that will inevitably require putting a price on carbon.

Then, to add insult to injury, Quebeckers were forced to pay $800 million to all Canadians and got nothing for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad that, even at a time of crisis, when we have a government that is solely focused on trying to protect Canada's interests and all of the industries across the country, members of the Bloc continue to want to play a divisive separatist role.

For example, Manitoba and Quebec benefit tremendously from DND and the military expenditures that take place. There are different industries in different provinces. At times, the federal government needs to come to the table to preserve, enhance and, hopefully, see additional growth in those industries, which is where there is a role for the national government.

We should be focusing our attention on how we can counter Donald Trump on tariffs and trade. Does the member not acknowledge that there is an issue before us today that needs to be dealt with, which the Bloc should be dealing with, and that is the issue of trade and tariffs?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we defend the interests of our regions and our nation, we are told that we are sowing division. I find that rather surprising. I do not know whether the member for Winnipeg North was listening to me, but I listed all the appalling injustices that the federal government has imposed on Quebec, and today he tells me that I am sowing division.

According to the vision of the member for Winnipeg North, a good member is someone who puts Canada first, stays quiet, sits here and promotes the interests of all Canadians at the expense of Quebeckers. That is what I understood him to say, and that is the problem I have with his colleagues from Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches all day. The Liberals keep saying that Quebec did not participate in the federal carbon pricing program. According to them, that is why Quebec will not receive the $800 million.

What does the member think of that logic?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has its own carbon pricing system.

It is completely illogical for my Liberal colleagues to say that the Canadians who participated in the federal carbon pricing system are entitled to a rebate for a tax that they did not pay. That is like saying there is no need to pay taxes to receive a tax refund. It is totally illogical. The Liberals' only justification for this is to say that Quebec had its own pricing system. That is inconsistent and illogical. It really surprises me to see members from Quebec rise to defend an inconsistency that I consider to be stupid and that is at their constituents' expense.

Just for fun, we calculated earlier what $800 million represents. That comes out to roughly $10 million per Quebec riding, stolen from each member from Quebec. The Liberals are pleased. That is what I call lackeyism.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Jonquière on his speech.

The purpose of my question is to clarify the situation for my colleagues and for the people tuning in at home today. Liberal MPs keep telling us that Quebeckers are not entitled to the rebate because Quebec has its own carbon pricing system. On April 19, 2024, the Liberal government changed the system. The Canada carbon rebate payments, which were previously paid out quarterly, became annual payments. The rebate was an advance on the tax that people would be paying indirectly on various products.

Now, they say the government reimbursed the credit on April 22, six days before the federal election. That period had already been covered in advance, but cheques were sent out anyway.

I would like my colleague from Jonquière to explain something to us. Since the period was already covered, does that mean the Liberals bought themselves votes with a handout in the last election?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is right there in the question. It was indeed a vote-buying handout.

I can hardly believe it. During question period, the Prime Minister even said he was proud to have put an end to the carbon tax. He said that the Government of Quebec had its own carbon tax. The Prime Minister himself does not understand the differences between the carbon pricing mechanisms in Canada. Quebec does not have a carbon tax; it has a carbon exchange. I cannot believe it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the jig is up. Ottawa's mask has fallen to reveal the true face of injustice. While Quebec has been faithfully keeping its commitments and fighting the scourge of climate change for years, Canadian power, blinded by its political interests, has betrayed the most basic principles of fairness.

On April 22, in a move unworthy of a just country, the Canadian government issued a colossal $3.7 billion in fake cheques labelled “carbon rebate” to people in provinces that year after year had refused to step up and do their part in what could be considered the fight to secure the future of this planet.

Meanwhile, we, the people of Quebec, have been exemplary and courageous; we have our faults and our qualities, but I think those are arguably qualities we share. Since 2013, we have led the way with our own carbon market, but we have gotten nothing in return—not one penny. Worse yet, we are being fleeced to pay for others who are dragging their feet when it comes to the environment. Is that Canadian justice? Is that how Canada rewards people for putting in an effort?

This is not a simple oversight. It is a cold and calculated betrayal. It is an affront to the people of Quebec, their virtue and their intelligence.

Who is going to pay for this joke? The people of Quebec, that is who. Our nation is providing $814 million to support a Canadian lie.

In 2025, while Quebeckers have shown themselves to be, as always, valiant and fair-minded, Ottawa, with a gimmick that is unworthy of founding principles and equal rights between peoples, has the nerve to perpetrate an unprecedented spoliation.

Between April 22 and April 28, just a few days before the general election, the federal government undertook an electoral strategy designed to pay out an astronomical sum in the form of cheques to people in the other provinces. Amounts ranging from $220 to $456 per person were sent out without a penny of carbon tax being collected during the period in question.

What about Quebec? Quebec was excluded and punished for being a forward-thinking nation. Why is that? We were punished because, over a decade ago, we chose to be responsible and we set up our own carbon market. We rejected inaction and neglect. Ottawa is now using that very virtue as an excuse to extort money from us.

Although Quebec did not receive any cheques, it did contribute money for that federal expense. This bears repeating: Quebec provided funds to enable that federal expenditure. It paid $814 million. Our taxes, our sweat, have been used to fund cheques sent to citizens of other provinces, without the slightest acknowledgement or compensation.

When the National Assembly of Quebec, the legitimate legislature of Quebeckers, spoke with one voice, across party lines, to demand redress for this injustice, what was the response? It was met with bureaucratic acrobatics. The Prime Minister stated that Quebec had chosen a different system. We have heard that as recently as today. To this, we say: Is it a mistake to act responsibility? Is it a crime to have foresight? The answer is no.

This is not a question of choice; it is a question of respect and justice. Ottawa stubbornly refuses to show us that respect.

The Bloc Québécois is not asking for anything extravagant in its motion. It is only asking for minimal redress for a proven, recognized and demonstrated prejudice; a simple return of what was taken from us; a simple acknowledgment that Quebec is not a fiscal cash cow here to satisfy Ottawa's electoral whims.

This injustice, however, is only a symptom. Of course, as long as Quebec is tied to a state that decides unilaterally, that distributes resources according to its partisan interests, that excludes Quebec when it suits it and taxes us when it needs to, we will be condemned to suffer.

We demand, with the quiet strength of people who are in the right, that Quebec be compensated without delay for the entirety of its stolen contribution.

The Prime Minister of Canada, the leader of a morally bankrupt Liberal government, not only has betrayed the principles of his own party, but worse, he has betrayed science, the future, and the trust of the people. He gave in.

Still, he and his ministers have claimed for years, with numbers to back them up, that carbon pricing was not a burden, but a fair redistribution policy that benefited the middle class and protected the most vulnerable. We have all heard these arguments from the other side of the House, with facts and evidence. He told us that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had said so and attested that eight out of 10 Canadians received more than they paid. We have all heard that.

Then suddenly, just today during question period, we heard the Prime Minister say that he was proud to have abolished the carbon tax. Wow. Under that system, Quebec was excluded, as usual. Quebec was excluded even though we paid, excluded even though we were exemplary, excluded because we are different. The reason, we are told, is that Quebec has its own system, a system that works. Because it works so well, because of that virtue, Quebec is being punished, to the tune of $814 million, which was taken out of the pockets of families, seniors and workers.

We might say that this exclusion is probably just one facet of an even greater betrayal. What is the point of all this? It is to satisfy the oil barons, a fossil monarchy that dictates the laws to Canadian Parliament and to whom the Liberals have become obedient servants. They confuse the private interests of the oil sands with the national interest of Canada. We are currently going through an unprecedented centralization phase. That is the table Ottawa is setting behind the smokescreen, inside the Trojan horse that is “one economy, not 13”. That is what they are inviting us to once again, despite the unanimous opposition of the National Assembly.

Quebec does not want a bitumen future. Quebec wants a future with clean air, justice, progress. If Canada refuses that path, we will carve it out alone. We have no problem with that.

The Bloc Québécois motion is just a first step, a modest requirement. It is about giving us back what was taken from us. Behind this motion, there is a bigger idea: we will no longer put up with being disrespected like this, ignored, pillaged. Quebec is not to be a forgotten province. We are an awakened nation.

Today, we are calling for justice, on this issue and many others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to raise the issue that British Columbia, Quebec and, I understand, Northwest Territories were never a part of the program itself. The Bloc members have chosen to completely ignore the issue as opposed to playing divisive politics.

It was interesting that one of the member's colleagues made reference to the pipeline as an example. Manitoba, my home province, has benefited from tens of millions, going into billions, of dollars, because we are a have-not province, receiving money that comes from provinces like Alberta because of issues like the pipeline. We are being critical because there were supports for a pipeline.

I wonder if the member recognizes that in a federal system, sometimes we need to support the different industries throughout the country, in all provinces, whether it is Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or whatever it might be.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have missed over the past six months is my hon. colleague being all over the map. He always gives very long speeches that go every which way in the preamble. He wants to answer everything, but at the end, he asks a question that is a bit out in left field.

Do we need to support a bunch of industries? The answer is yes.

Are there also industries that are part of the past and do not deserve support, and should we be thinking about a just transition? The answer is a resounding yes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with part of the member's speech, which is how badly the Liberals misled us about the carbon tax. They told us that everybody was going to get back more than it cost them. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it very clear that, in fact, not everybody who contributed to the federal carbon tax program was going to get back what it actually cost them. We got a lot of misinformation and disinformation from the Liberals on that. Now they have done a complete flip-flop on it, and they say how bad it is and that it really has created inflation and driven up the prices of everything.

We also know that provinces like British Columbia and Quebec did not contribute to the federal carbon tax program. The cheques that were issued were rebates. They were issued during the election, which was totally wrong. It was totally irresponsible of the Liberals to do that. However, does the member really think that someone who did not contribute to a pool should be entitled to a rebate from that pool?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled to it because we contributed to it. That is precisely the problem: We contributed to it. Of course, what we gave, we need to get back. The same goes for British Columbia.

That said, it is ironic because my colleague remembers very well how the Liberals swore for a long time, hand on heart, that the carbon tax was good for everyone. We had the numbers, we had the facts, we had the documents and we quoted the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It went on and on. Today, the government is proud to have abolished it.

My Conservative friends must be laughing their heads off, but, as they say, laughing does not make it funny.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleague on his speech.

Since he is the international trade critic, I would like him to explain how eliminating carbon pricing will impact trade with the European Union. The EU is going to impose an entry tax on certain products if no carbon price was imposed on them in their source country.

I would like my colleague to explain how this could penalize Canada and benefit Quebec, which has once again shown leadership and progress by having its own carbon market.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to relations with the Americans, I would say that Quebec has led the way because our system is tied to California's system.

Here is the funny part. Next week we are going to move on to the business of supply. We know that the government intends to get strengthen ties with Europe. However, the government announced that it was abolishing carbon pricing, even though it knows the EU's position on that. There is still no departmental plan, even though we are going to vote on appropriations.

I look forward to finding out whether an agreement was reached between Canada and the European Union without our knowledge that would mean that Canada will not have any problems exporting goods to the EU, despite abolishing carbon pricing. If we get access to a departmental plan before voting on the appropriations, we may find out more.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who have been waiting for my impassioned speech. I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

We are talking about carbon pricing and the Bloc Québécois motion. I would like to begin by saying that what has been eliminated is carbon pricing at the consumer level. One might wonder why this was done. I think that it was the right thing to do and that it was good policy. Even though it was offset by individual rebates, consumer pricing was rather poorly received by the public. It also resulted in a lot of widely circulated disinformation. This unfortunately helped create a great deal of mistrust toward the government's policy and its use, to the point where we realized that it would be more constructive to scrap carbon pricing for consumers but maintain the industrial carbon tax. I think it is extremely important to maintain it, and that is what we intend to do.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues have rightly pointed out that this could hinder Canadian exports. In the current climate of a trade war with the United States, a partner that we thought was very reliable but is no longer, we need to look for new markets. We need to be able to diversify our trade opportunities. If we export manufactured goods to Europe, for example, we could be penalized if we do not have a carbon tax for the industrial sector.

The planet is moving forward. Carbon pricing is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because we still need to reduce those emissions. I am always surprised when Conservatives, people who generally believe in market mechanisms to change behaviour, suddenly think that a market mechanism that has an effect on prices is no longer good when it comes to carbon emissions. I am surprised by that. We can bring together the most conservative economists on the planet, and they will all say that a pricing mechanism is the most effective way to change behaviour. That surprises me a bit.

We are therefore going to keep carbon pricing on the industrial side, because I think it is useful, especially at this time. The global economy is changing. It is becoming less carbon intensive.

I would like to raise another point before returning to the main thrust of the Bloc Québécois motion. It has also been mentioned today and in recent weeks, if not before, that the carbon tax has caused inflation in Canada. No, that is not how it works.

Let us talk about inflation. Perhaps our colleagues have heard about the pandemic and how it completely disrupted mechanisms, supply chains and international trade? Every OECD country and every developed country had to quickly and abruptly shut down its economy in 2020, then gradually reopen it. Then, in 2021‑22, as we were gradually reopening the economy after the pandemic emergency passed, we realized that the pandemic-induced supply chain disruption resulted in very high demand. Unfortunately, supply could not keep up, which threw the whole system out of whack. That is what triggered inflation in Canada, the United States, Europe, Japan, Mexico and everywhere else. It was not Liberal policy, for crying out loud; it was a global phenomenon that was then exacerbated.

Perhaps our colleagues have also heard about the war in Ukraine? It set off an oil crisis and disrupted Russian oil exports, which rapidly drove up energy prices as well as grain prices, because shipments were down. Ukraine was a very large grain producer. All of these factors caused global inflation.

That was where we were in 2023 and 2024. The central banks reacted appropriately. The Bank of Canada did what it had to do. I would remind you that our colleagues across the floor were saying at the time that if they came to power, they would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Let us be serious: What kind of banana republic would we end up in? That is not something that is done, especially since the Bank of Canada was one of the first to successfully control inflation. We are now back within the 2% range, and the inflation peak of a few years ago is behind us. It is always important to avoid confusing inflation with the cost of living, because they are not quite the same thing. Past price increases are still there, but inflation is now well under control. The Governor of the Bank of Canada is fortunately still in office, because he has been one of the most successful members of this fraternity of central bank governors.

Let us return to the Bloc Québécois motion. Our colleagues said that Quebec has been punished and robbed. Those are very harsh words that I find difficult to follow and understand. We live in a confederation, where there is a fairly elaborate system of federal revenue transfers. That is what we have done. I think that it has been done very well and that, no, Quebec has not been punished or cheated.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see my former colleague from the Quebec National Assembly here in Ottawa.

At the time, when my colleague was Quebec's finance minister, he presented a budget within 46 days of taking office. What does he think of the time frame that is now being given to the federal Minister of Finance?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I completely agree with the approach being taken now, which will come as no surprise. The context is completely different. We are in the midst of a trade war with the United States. We need to present a carefully considered budget and take the time to implement the necessary measures. We are taking the right approach.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech and on his election. I welcome him to Ottawa. He used to be a member of the Quebec National Assembly, which brings back many memories for us. I definitely remember.

I must begin by congratulating him on the thoroughness and accuracy of the facts he shared. He did not say that carbon pricing is a bad thing. He simply said that the government lost the communications battle to the Conservative Party, which has been talking about axing the tax for several years. I wanted to point that out because I think it is worth mentioning.

I would like to understand something, however. When my colleague was a member of the Quebec National Assembly, he said that Quebec was proud to be part of a carbon market of its own making. In April 2015, he even said that when Ontario joined the carbon market, he was proud that two-thirds of the Canadian economy was now participating in the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He said that at the Canadian green economy round table in Quebec City.

When he is in Quebec City, the carbon market is a good idea. However, when he is in Ottawa, it is a bad idea. I would like my colleague to explain this to me, because I want to understand.