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]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the notion that it seems to be more of a divisive motion the Bloc is raising. This is not just about the province of Quebec. Quebec and British Columbia have played a very strong leadership role on the environment, but neither of those provinces participated in the federal backstop program.

Could the member provide a quick comment on that issue?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is indeed causing division. However, the federal government respected the will of the provincial government to have its own carbon exchange. Today, the families who were counting on that April 22 cheque have received it and they were compensated. It is not favouritism. It is a question of fairness for these families.

We are not sowing division. We are acting out of respect for those who paid this carbon exchange.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about fairness when it comes to the carbon tax rebate.

Does he agree that this money was paid on April 22 for the period of April, May and June, while the carbon tax was abolished on April 1 by his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, by order in council?

Effective April 1, there was no more carbon tax. The government supposedly reimbursed the taxes that should have been paid during the months of April, May and June, but will not be. Does he agree with that?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the rebate cheques were issued on April 22, as planned and out of respect for Canadians. Many families are in need, and they expected to receive their cheques on April 22. This refund was not made out of favouritism, but out of respect for Canadians.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate and to reiterate our government's immediate priorities for making life more affordable for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Ultimately, this motion and debate boil down to affordability. I will therefore take a moment to focus on the logic behind the consumer carbon tax rebate, although I would also like to pause in order to go over some of the important measures that our government has taken to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Quebeckers and Canadians asked for a serious plan for change to deal with the rising cost of living that has eroded their quality of life; change that puts more money in the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians; change that will build the strongest economy in the G7; change that builds one Canadian economy out of 13 and that includes a strong Quebec; and change that builds an affordable Quebec and an affordable Canada. During this session, our government has introduced important and ambitious legislation to make life more affordable for Quebeckers.

Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, sets out legislative measures designed to eliminate internal trade barriers and promote projects of national significance. It sets out a broad framework for liberalizing the Canadian economy, diversifying trade and improving national productivity, resilience and competitiveness.

In Bill C‑4, we have put forward three important measures that will put more money in the pockets of Quebeckers at a time when they really need it. First of all, Bill C-4 would implement our government's middle-class tax cut, which would provide tax relief to 22 million Canadians, including 4 million Quebeckers, and save two-income families up to $840 per year in 2026.

Once this legislation is enacted, the lowest individual marginal income tax rate would fall from 15% to 14% as of July 1 of this year. This tax cut would help hard-working Quebeckers and Canadians keep more of what they earn in their pockets and build a solid future. This tax cut will primarily benefit the Canadian workers who need it the most. That means that most of the tax relief will go to the two lowest income tax brackets, with close to half the tax savings going to those in the lowest tax bracket.

In addition, Bill C-4 would start providing tax relief almost immediately. With our middle-class tax cut announcement, the Canada Revenue Agency can update its source deduction tables for the period from July to December 2025, so that pay administrators can reduce income tax as of July 1. Further, Bill C-4 will remove the GST for first-time buyers of new homes valued at up to $1 million. That is great news.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member for Mirabel on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the member has been given time but the motion concerns a specific topic. My colleague is completely off topic. I would like to know if she is going to shift direction and talk about the motion we are debating today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

As the member for Mirabel knows, members have a lot of flexibility in discussing topics of interest to them and their ridings. I am sure that the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles will return to the topic of the motion and that everything will seem quite reasonable. The member will have a opportunity to speak to this again during the questions and comments period.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I continue with my speech, the connection with the Bloc's motion will become clear shortly.

The new GST rebate for first-time homebuyers will save buyers up to $50,000 on the purchase of their first home. That is not all. The rebate will also reduce the GST on homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million for first-time homebuyers. This is great news for Quebeckers who want to buy their first home and start the next chapter of their lives in Quebec.

Finally, Bill C-4 completes the next step in the regulatory suspension of the consumer carbon tax by completely removing the consumer carbon price from the law. The important word here is “consumer.” As part of this process, Canadians who lived in provinces or territories under the former regime are entitled to a refund. Canadians in Quebec, British Columbia and the territories did not contribute to this system. It is therefore clear that they will not receive similar refunds. This point seems relatively obvious and significant to me.

I will clarify what I said for my colleagues opposite, as well as for Quebeckers watching at home. In 2013, Quebec put in place its own cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon pollution. Rebates were sent to Canadians living in provinces or territories that were part of the existing regime to offset the now-cancelled federal carbon tax. Canadians in those provinces probably included that rebate in their budgets, and it was decided that they would get their money back. It is important to understand how carbon pricing works. It does not apply in provinces like Quebec, which has its own carbon pricing system. Quebec did not pay the federal carbon tax, so it did not receive the federal rebate. It is understandable and makes perfect sense. Quebec has long been a leader when it comes to the environment.

The Bloc Québécois has played a role in that field and deserves to be commended for that. The federal government respected Quebec's cap-and-trade system, which preceded the federal carbon tax. My Bloc Québécois colleagues can certainly respect and understand that. I hope that they will also be able to respect and welcome the important measures our government has taken to make life more affordable for Quebeckers and all Canadians. I think that we should continue to focus on this important task instead of debating made-up problems that do not really exist.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I see it, one thing is perfectly easy to understand. My colleague said that Quebeckers did not participate in the federal carbon pricing system because Quebec has its own carbon exchange and so Quebeckers were not entitled to the rebate. While they may not have been entitled to the rebate, neither were other Canadians, since they did not pay the much-talked-about carbon tax for the period for which they received the cheque. It would be like telling a person who does not pay income tax to expect a tax refund. It does not work that way. It is as simple as that.

The people who paid the full cost of the infamous carbon tax rebate were Quebeckers as a whole. The rebate was not paid out of money from the tax itself. Quebeckers and Canadians paid for it together, and Quebeckers contributed $800 million.

Can the member grasp that, or is the concept too complex for her?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for such a genuine, in-depth question.

The Bloc Québécois is demanding that Quebeckers receive payment for a program that Quebec opted out of and did not contribute to. The final payment fulfills a commitment to families who paid fuel charges. Our government is a responsible government that does not play favourites.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the extended prorogation period and then an election campaign, I found myself missing some things about this place, and other things not so much.

Earlier in the day, there was a 20-minute intervention by my friend, the member for Winnipeg North. I did listen to his intervention, and I gathered from those 20 minutes that the Liberal Party supported the consumer-facing carbon tax when it was popular, and then when the consumer-facing carbon tax was not popular, it dropped its support.

Would the member, being a new member to this chamber, agree that this was the primary driver for the Liberal Party to drop its support for the consumer-facing carbon tax?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague likely does not know this, but I served in the House from 2015 to 2019. I am a revenant. The member likely has not seen me around. Yes, I have had the pleasure of representing the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles once before.

In response to his question, I would like to say that we were recently elected to take real action to make life more affordable for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate that when I am here, I get to see my colleague. She has been dearly missed. She is one of those individuals who really promote the idea that we should learn more French. She has been a very strong advocate of the French language and a strong advocate for the province of Quebec.

My concern about this issue is that there needs to be an acknowledgement that British Columbia, Quebec and I believe the Northwest Territories, which I am not 100% sure about, were not part of the program. As a result, when the Prime Minister made a decision, he decided in favour of the provinces that were participating in the program.

It seems to me that that was a fair way of dealing with it, given that the rebate cheques were going out merely three weeks after the program for the consumer carbon tax was cancelled.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North and I have served together. It is true that I have always promoted French within the team and I am a proud defender of French. I would say that I am a proud defender of linguistic minorities. Whether we are talking about French outside Quebec, French in Quebec or linguistic minorities in Quebec, it is important to me to defend them and to continue to defend them.

The territories did not participate in the federal carbon exchange. We are talking about British Columbia, Quebec and, I believe, the Northwest Territories. It is only natural that there is no rebate for those who did not pay the carbon tax. I thank my colleague for acknowledging that. I look forward to hearing more words in French in the near future.

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to greeting you, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-du-Nord.

I listened to the previous member give a speech that was completely off topic for all 10 minutes. I was wondering how to start. I went to the dictionary and looked up the word “cheat”. That is a strong word. It is important to define it. It is defined as to “gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods; defraud”, or to “deprive someone of something to which they are entitled”. A government that decides not to pay what it owes to Quebeckers is cheating them. For regular people, that is in the Criminal Code. That is what the Liberals are about to do, based on what we understand from their remarks today. The federal government has cheated people more than once, according to the definition I have here. It is a habit. It is crazy that we are here in the House saying that Quebeckers are being cheated by the federal government and almost finding it normal.

When the 1998 ice storm happened, I did not even have the right to vote. The federal government still owes Quebec some $484 million, as well as $500 million for social assistance for people who entered at Roxham. These are unpaid cheques. Anyone who does not pay their credit card bill gets cut off, but not the federal government. There is no aerospace policy, even though the auto sector quickly received $4 billion as soon as something happened. The Trans Mountain pipeline for western Canada is over $30 billion. Not even 22% of military contracts go to Quebec, even though we have the aerospace industry and the icebreaker expertise at the Davie shipyard. In the bilateral health agreements, Quebec does not even have the money from its own taxes to pay for diabetes medication because the federal government thinks it is more important to meddle in other people's affairs than to help normal, sick people. This time, Quebeckers are being cheated of $814 million. The member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said earlier that this represents more than $10 million per riding. I do not know if the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles realizes that the federal government is about to steal $10 million from people who just voted for her.

How did this all get started? Paul Journet, a well known and respected editorial writer at La Presse, summed it up well last week. He said that initially there was a deal in Canada. The federal government said: I will buy Trans Mountain, I will take care of this pipeline that no one wants and in which no one wants to invest—like most pipeline projects actually—and in exchange the provinces will commit to pricing pollution. Some provinces did not do that. In some cases, it already existed. Ontario took one step forward, one step back. Finally, the federal government had to fill in the gaps and come up with its own program. What happened next? The money came. At great expense to public funds, Quebeckers paid for the pipeline. We are talking about $32 billion, $33 billion or $34 billion in public funds. It is an absolute boondoggle. What happened? The Conservatives, who were heavily criticized for months and years by the Liberals, demonized that tax. A new Prime Minister arrives and says: I want to win an election and the only thing that matters to me are the polls. The guy wrote a book called Values. He comes to power and might call his biography Polls. That is what happened. The Liberals decided to buy an election. They eliminated the tax.

As we have said before and we will say again, the law was clear. The Department of Finance documents clearly state that payments made in April defer the fuel charge proceeds from April to June. They indicate that the cheque is always paid prior to the collection period. The people who wrote the documents are the same people in the Prime Minister's Office who wrote the speeches we just heard today. It is the same staff. The same team that wrote that in the legislation, in the Department of Finance documents, wrote the absurd speeches we heard from the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. We could list a bunch of ridings where people are being told to say that. It clearly says “prior to the collection period”. They are telling us that Quebeckers did not pay the carbon tax, that they have their own system and that is why they are not getting a cheque. What do these people not understand? When the cheque was sent on April 1, each of the eight provinces where people received cheques had their own systems. There is no longer any system.

The government sent cheques to people in provinces that no longer had a system. The federal government issued those cheques anyway, using funds from its consolidated revenue fund. That is what it did.

That is why the Quebec National Assembly has spoken out on the issue. Quebeckers and British Columbians are being treated unfairly.

This is not the first time votes have been bought using that program. The first time was in 2023. Members will recall that the Liberals were at the very bottom of the polls. What did they decide to do? They decided to stop charging the carbon tax on home heating oil, which is used primarily in the Atlantic provinces. One might think that they would have reduced the amounts paid out in those provinces accordingly. If the carbon tax is lower, the amount of the cheques should also be lower. Well, I will end the suspense. They doubled a portion of the cheque. They lowered the tax, but they increased the amount of the cheque. They bought votes. On top of that, they took money from Quebeckers to subsidize half of these people's heat pumps. They buy votes. That is what they do.

I would like someone to explain to me why a vote for a Liberal, bought with public funds, is worth more in the Atlantic provinces than in Ontario, and why a vote in Quebec is worth nothing. It is because these people take Quebeckers for granted. That is exactly what is happening.

What the Liberals are telling us is that Quebeckers have their own system and that they needed to budget. The Liberals' argument to justify their opposition to our motion, even though such opposition is impossible to justify, is like a Pokémon: It evolves, but it does not get any prettier.

In 2023, when the Liberals bought votes in Atlantic Canada, the then minister of environment and climate change, who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, said there would be no more carve-outs. Today, there is no more program, full stop, and yet we have not even changed governments.

Now the new Prime Minister has come along and is trying to justify himself. During the election campaign, the Liberals realized that they had handed out cheques at Quebeckers' expense. That is what we told the Prime Minister during the leaders' debate. The Prime Minister was unable to respond.

The Liberals then went to work to refine their arguments. Liberals can think hard when they put their minds to it. That is an important prerequisite.

As we will see, the argument has changed. The day after the leaders' debate, the then Minister of Environment and Climate Change said on LCN in Quebec that Quebeckers were paying less per tonne of CO₂ in their own system and therefore were not entitled to the cheques. Of course, an environment minister is not supposed to understand what a cap is. It is normal that he does not understand what it is. However, on April 1, the Liberals said that in eight provinces, even if they paid 0¢ per tonne of CO₂, people were entitled to cheques.

I taught logic and mathematics at university. Here, we are not even at public policy and critical thinking 101.

Now, the government is telling us that people need to be able to budget, which is why it gave them those cheques. It says that it lowered the price of gas, but this is so hard on people that they need a cheque. The member for Winnipeg North told us that this morning. He is the Liberals' St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. If the church did not already have a patron saint of lost causes, he would be canonized. When he rises, it is because all hope is lost. The premise of the argument is that, since the price of gas has dropped, people need compensation. This is what it has come to. What is the point of debating here when that is the premise?

No one even realizes how outrageous it is anymore. Here we are, talking about a robbery, about things written down in black and white by the Prime Minister's Office, yet it has somehow become banal. Parliament may pass the motion, but the Liberals could not care less. They are not going to respect the will of Parliament.

However, when delivery companies like DoorDash charge too much or give bad service, the Competition Bureau gets on their case, takes them to court, conducts a special investigation and demands refunds.

What we are discussing here is a veritable scandal. I urge the government to reconsider. It cannot be said often enough: Quebeckers are being cheated.

Under the circumstances, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table, in both official languages, the dictionary definition of cheat. My colleagues will then see that the current situation fits that definition perfectly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that it is not just the Province of Quebec. There are also the Province of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. They did not participate, for a darn good reason. In many ways, Quebec and B.C. have been leading on the issue of the environment, but they were not participants in the consumer price on carbon. That is the reason they were not included in the rebates that have been going out for the last year or so.

One of the member's colleagues made reference to the issue of global markets. This is where we should be looking at industrial carbon pricing and issues of that nature, to ensure that Quebec and all provinces are able to build a healthier economy by making sure that we invest time in the issue of industrial carbon—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the member for Mirabel time to answer.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not that Quebec did not participate. It is that the Liberals created a war room, thought about how they could buy votes, and decided to write cheques to eight provinces.

I find it interesting how the member for Winnipeg North phrased his question. He spent the day in the House telling everyone that people had budgeted for this rebate and that they should be treated with respect. That was pretty much his only argument. However, we have just shown him that this was essentially the opposite of the truth, that his argument did not hold water, that it went against the most basic logic and that government basically cheated Quebeckers. Now he is standing up and talking to us about international trade.

I appeal to the sense of duty and truth that must guide us as parliamentarians. I urge my colleague to vote in favour of the motion and to vote for justice for Quebeckers.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passionate speech today. We do not always agree with the Bloc, but I have to say that, in the member's speech, there was a lot of discussion about the carbon tax, when it was implemented and why it was withdrawn. There are definitely a lot of frustrations in my riding of Simcoe—Grey from people who have paid for years and years into something that they thought they got money back from, which was not true.

What message does that send to the residents in his riding and my riding about the government, when it not only flip-flops on such a key issue but also, basically, has been taking money from Canadians for many years?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, said something important in his opening remarks. He said that he does not always agree with the Bloc Québécois. We do not have to agree on everything. However, we must agree that there are facts, things that can be verified as true. Then we can disagree on which policy is the right one.

For the purposes of this debate, the Liberals believe that the Earth is flat. They are denying reality while ignoring the facts and the information put out by the Prime Minister's Office. This is undignified of a parliamentary debate. It simply proves that, in order to buy votes in eight provinces, the current government is willing to cheat the people from Mirabel out of just over $10 million. I will make it my duty to remind them of that.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his speech, which was, as always, well founded, well articulated, very interesting and very clear.

That said, I would like to ask him a question, because he has expertise that I do not. To my knowledge, the carbon tax was abolished on April 1, but the carbon exchange that applies in Quebec and British Columbia was still in effect on April 1, and continues to be in effect.

Are Quebeckers and British Columbians not, in one way or another, paying a price for decarbonization that the rest of Canada has not been paying since April 1?