Debates of June 10th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to Quebec

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Whitby.

It is a privilege to rise today to address today's motion put forward by the member for Saint-Jean. The motion deals with consumer carbon pricing and the significant changes we made on day one. Those changes were the result of listening to Canadians who wanted a climate policy that moved past political divisions. As the motion clearly states, the Prime Minister indeed eliminated the consumer fuel charge for Canadians in jurisdictions where the federal carbon pricing applied as of April 1, 2025. It was what Canadians expected and what our new government delivered.

Notably, the elimination of the consumer fuel charge did not apply in some jurisdictions, such as Quebec. That is because Quebec has been a leader in addressing climate change. In 2013, Quebec established its own cap-and-trade system to implement a price on carbon pollution. It controls the design of this system and all of the proceeds, which is why the Canada carbon rebate has never applied to Quebec and why Quebec has never expected to receive the carbon rebate.

Quebec's leadership in establishing a cap-and-trade system not only predates federal carbon pricing but has served as a model for jurisdictions across North America. Its linkages with California through the Western Climate Initiative is a testament to how provinces can lead in innovation and cross-border climate solutions.

Our government will always support provinces like Quebec that demonstrate ambition, innovation and accountability in fighting climate change. We on this side of the House respect and appreciate provinces and territories that have implemented their own climate policies that align with the common goal of fighting climate change.

When the Prime Minister made his announcement on March 14, he made it abundantly clear at that time that Canadians in those provinces where the federal fuel charges applied would still receive a final rebate in April. We recognize that Canadians in these provinces would have been expecting that rebate.

I would like to move forward on this issue and talk about the Government of Canada's renewed focus. There is no question that just as Canadians expected the removal of the consumer fuel charge, they also expect that large polluters must pay a price for the pollution they emit if we are ever going to meet our climate goals. This is essential to both our efforts to fight climate change and our commitment to making Canada an energy superpower, because a credible industrial carbon pricing system is a precondition to unlocking access for Canadian products in jurisdictions where carbon border adjustments are being applied.

This is especially important at a time when Canadians and Quebeckers agree that we need to diversify our trade to become less reliant on the United States. Countries around the world, including the European Union, are moving quickly to impose carbon border adjustment mechanisms. Without a credible industrial pricing system, Canadian exporters would face tariffs that make our products less competitive. That is not just an environmental risk; it is an economic one. It is why our government is targeting efforts on its approach to carbon pricing on industrial emissions.

According to the independent estimates, industrial carbon pricing is the climate policy with the single largest contribution to achieving our climate targets. It is important to note that we are not doing this alone. Our government is 100% committed to engaging provinces, territories, indigenous communities and stakeholders on how to strengthen industrial carbon pricing and make it work better so that industrial pricing systems continue to maximize emissions reduction. Industrial pricing is needed to generate investment in clean technologies and create well-paying jobs.

Getting back to the motion at hand, it is important to understand how carbon pricing works. Not only did it not apply in jurisdictions like Quebec that have their own carbon pricing system, but where the federal system did apply, all revenues from consumer carbon pricing were returned to the jurisdiction in which they were collected. For example, in my home province of British Columbia, the carbon rebate system also did not apply, but in the provinces where it did, Canadians were paying the fuel charge right up until mere weeks before the final rebate was paid. They were rightly expecting to receive a final Canada carbon rebate payment in April, and for that reason, the final Canadian carbon rebate was issued as a transitional measure following the phase-out of the federal consumer fuel charge. This payment was not a new benefit; it was the final instalment of a rebate tied to past costs under the federal fuel charge. Quebec did not pay federal carbon pricing, so it did not receive the federal rebate. This is just being consistent.

However, now the Bloc wants people to receive a rebate for a program they opted out of and never paid into. The fact is that the final rebate honoured a commitment to families who paid the fuel charge. I would like to emphasize that, especially right now, Canadians and Quebecers expect the federal government to work together to build a stronger Canada that brings us together while growing our economy and fighting climate change.

At a time when Canadians are looking for solutions and expecting actions, not slogans, we need to come together and focus on what works. That means respecting provincial leadership, standing by our commitments and investing in a cleaner, more competitive future for our country. Our government will continue to take serious, science-based and economically sound action on climate change, and we will do so in partnership with all Canadians, wherever they live, in Quebec or any part of this great country. That is how we will build a cleaner economy, that is how we will support Canadian families, and that is how we will meet this moment with ambition and unity.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are still waiting. We are waiting for action from the government in my riding. The Liberals did their heat pump announcement out east, with the carbon tax, and then decided to divide Canadians, rolling the CMAs and the census data back to benefit Liberal ridings.

The member talks about indigenous Canadians. In York central, we have the Chippewas of Georgina Island, in the middle of Lake Simcoe, which was classified as Toronto, and they do not receive the rural top-up on the carbon tax.

The government admitted there is a problem with it, in budget 2024 and the fall economic statement, to make people whole. Now I have people in my riding who have CRA coming after them. They thought they were rural. They did everything by the book and filed with tax software called UFile that selected rural. The government divided Canadians based on geography. My people are entitled to the rural top-up, and I will fight for every nickel they are still entitled to.

Could the member comment on that, please?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government will continue to work together, looking for new and innovative ways to ensure that Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast, will have money put back into their pockets so they can live a very comfortable life, and so my first nation, the Musqueam first nation, lives a comfortable life.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a correction to my colleague's speech. He said that Quebeckers had not received the payment because they had not paid the carbon tax. We are not talking about all the payments, just the last payment that was made on April 22 and that was called an advance payment, meaning that it was made before expenses. The tax was no longer in effect as of April 1, but it was paid for April, May and June, a three-month period in which it did not even apply. The $3.7 billion was not paid out of the money that would have been collected from the carbon tax. It was paid out by all Canadians for purposes other than this tax, and Quebeckers are not entitled to it.

If they gave some people a gift covering three months of payments on April 22, during the election campaign, why not also give it to Quebeckers?

I would like to know whether my colleague has a better understanding of the purpose of our opposition day this time.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, this payment was not a new benefit. It was the final instalment of a rebate tied to past costs under the federal fuel charge. This is not unfair. It is just consistent with what has happened over the last number of years.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about how it was important to make sure that people did get the final payment because they had planned for it.

Maybe he could expand on some of the measures taken by the government to make sure Canadians actually have money to do the things they need to do, to feed their kids or do extracurricular activities. Maybe the member could talk about some of the projects we have tabled.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the first thing we did was the income tax cut, which is going to put over $800 in the pockets of families. We are going to eliminate the GST on new home builds, which would allow people to live in my riding for the first time in a number of years. Many more exciting things are coming down the pike.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, for years, the Liberals insisted their carbon tax was working, claiming eight out of 10 Canadians were better off because of the rebate, even as families struggled with soaring food, fuel and heating costs. Now, with no budget and no plan, they have scrapped their own policy, which took more money out of the pockets of Canadians, and have stolen the Conservative plan to axe the tax, pretending it was theirs all along. Just yesterday, a member opposite said that a federal budget has no value.

If the Liberal government spent years defending a tax that made life more expensive and now claims a budget has no value, how can Canadians trust it to deliver anything but higher costs, less transparency, less accountability—

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

Questions should not be speeches.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are looking forward to moving forward with this.

While I was outside of the House, I paid attention to what was going on, and it was the other side of the House that divided us on this issue. That is why we want to move forward for Canadians, families, children and seniors. We will continue to do that on this side of the House.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the Speaker's chair. I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's debate.

As hon. members are aware, one of the things the Prime Minister did upon assuming his responsibilities was to introduce regulations ceasing the application of the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1 of this year. As we also know, one of the first things our government did at the beginning of this parliamentary session was introduce Bill C-4, which would take a further step by completely repealing the consumer carbon price from Canadian law.

For the purpose of considering today's motion, it is important to bear in mind, however, that this is not the only thing that Bill C-4 would accomplish. Of particular relevance to today's motion is the fact that Bill C-4 would cut taxes for nearly all Canadians.

In our government's Speech from the Throne, we outlined our bold and ambitious plan for the future, and key to this plan is bringing down costs so Canadians can keep more of their paycheques to spend on what matters most to them. To make that happen, we introduced Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act, which is before Parliament for consideration. There are a couple of ways this bill would save money for all Canadians, including those in the province of Quebec.

Upon receiving royal assent, the bill would first legislate the delivery of our government's middle-class tax cut, providing tax relief for nearly 22 million Canadians and saving two-income families up to an average of about $840 a year in the year 2026. More specifically, this would be accomplished by reducing the lowest marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, effective July 1, 2025. This would help hard-working Canadians all across Canada, in all provinces and territories, keep more of their paycheques to spend, as I said, on what matters most to them. It would mean more money for groceries, kids, housing-related costs and whatever matters most to those families.

To start with, this middle-class tax cut is expected to provide $2.6 billion in tax relief to Canadians over the next six months and $5.4 billion in the year 2026, which would be the first full year when the tax rate is 14%. Then, going forward, the middle-class tax cut is expected to deliver over $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over five years, starting in 2025-26. As we have made clear in the course of the debate on Bill C-4, most of the benefits of this tax cut would go to the hard-working Canadians who need it most. A core principle for the government, as it always has been for the Liberal Party of Canada, is to help those who need it most first and prioritize them in all of our policy development and work—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague opposite's speech from the beginning, and I think you might point out to him that he gave the wrong speech, because he is talking about Bill C‑4 and not the opposition motion before us today.

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

I am sorry, I was not really paying attention.

I will remind the hon. member that we are discussing an opposition day motion. I know there is a lot of leeway in getting to the point, but I would ask the hon. member to get there.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we have made clear in the course of the debate on Bill C-4, most of the benefits of the tax cut would go to hard-working Canadians. That is because the bulk of its tax relief would go to those Canadians with incomes in the lowest two tax brackets, which includes those with taxable incomes under $114,750 in 2025. Within that group of hard-working Canadians, nearly half of the tax savings would go to those in the lowest tax bracket, which are those who earned $57,000 or less in 2025.

We can see how the tax savings from our middle-class tax cut would go to those who need it. What is more, these savings would also be realized when they need it most. That would start on Canada Day.

We would be able to deliver these tax savings to Canadians on a priority basis because, with the announcement of our middle class tax cut, the Canada Revenue Agency has updated its source deduction table—

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

Madam Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I do not think the member opposite understood you, because he is still reading his speech on Bill C‑4. The government has many days and ample time to introduce and debate bills. The opposition, for its part, has just one opposition day per session. He should be discussing today's opposition motion, rather than a bill.

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

I will give the hon. member an opportunity to discuss matters that relate directly to the opposition motion. That said, as members know, they have a lot of latitude in raising topics during a debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary wishes to comment on the same point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, in case the member was not paying attention, the parliamentary secretary talked about how Bill C-4 would eliminate the consumer carbon tax from the law. That is why he explained what Bill C-4 would do. If the member had been following the debate, I would suggest that he would see that the parliamentary secretary was, indeed, quite in order.

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

We are not going to debate this.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true that we are discussing Bill C-4, which would repeal the consumer carbon tax. I am also referencing a middle-class tax cut that has benefits for Quebec, which is the subject of today's opposition day motion, and that middle-class tax cut would have a positive effect for Quebecers all across the province of Quebec.

We would be able to deliver these tax savings to Canadians on a priority basis with the Canada Revenue Agency updating its source deduction tables for the July to December 2025 period so that employers and pay administrators are able to reduce tax withholdings as of July 1. This means individuals with employment income and other income subject to source deductions could begin to have tax withheld at the lower 14% rate as soon as Canada Day.

However, this is not the only way Bill C-4 would bring savings to Canadians all across our provinces and territories. It would also provide for the elimination of the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving them up to $50,000. It would do so while also lowering the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. In short, the rebate would be phased out in a linear manner for new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. For example, under this linear phase-out, a new home valued at $1.25 million would be eligible for a rebate of 50% of the maximum first-time homebuyer's GST rebate of $50,000, which still means a savings of up to $25,000, and that is significant.

With the making life more affordable for Canadians act, we would be providing a significant increase to the already substantial federal tax support available to first-time homebuyers through programs such as the first home savings account, which allows people to save tax-free for their first home purchase, the RRSP homebuyers' plan and the first-time homebuyers tax credit.

We all know that a home is more than just a roof over one's head. It is a place to build a family. It is a place to build equity towards priorities, such as retirement. It is the single biggest asset that most families own, and it is the financial security for many families. As such, it is the largest, most important purchase most people will ever make in their lifetimes. By helping people finance that purchase, we are helping more young people and more families achieve one of their most important goals in life.

At the same time, as I made clear at the outset, Bill C-4 would permanently remove the federal fuel charge from Canadian law. With the removal of the federal fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025, eligible Canadians did receive a final Canada carbon rebate payment, starting April 22. Our government decided to provide this final Canada carbon rebate payment to eligible households, but, and this is important, in provinces where the federal fuel charge applied, which does not include Quebec or British Columbia, by the way, it was especially important to us to ensure that families, especially low-income families that had been counting on those rebate checks, would be able to plan their family budgets on the assumption that they would be getting the rebate payment.

The federal fuel charge only applied in provinces that did not have their own systems in place to put a consumer price on pollution, and the majority of proceeds from the federal fuel charge were returned to households in those provinces via the Canada carbon rebate. As we know, Quebec does not have such a system in place. It opted out when it had the chance, and therefore did not contribute federal fuel charges to the federal government.

The Government of Canada continues to believe that a price on pollution is key to meeting our emissions reduction targets, which is specifically why we have kept the large emitter output pricing system in place. In fact, a price on pollution for large emitters will continue to be a pillar of Canada's plan to build a strong economy and a greener future.

Canada's emissions reduction plan contains a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures, strategies and investments, and that includes a price on pollution for large industrial emitters. With the elimination of the consumer fuel charge, we are able to refocus federal carbon pollution pricing standards on ensuring that carbon pricing systems are in place across Canada on a broad range of greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

In doing so, we will ensure that we have a system that is fair and effective, and competitive internationally, because of course we know that many of our products are going to be subject to carbon border adjustment mechanisms and that those will essentially penalize us if we do not have an industrial system in place for pricing carbon.

At the same time, we will continue to move forward with measures, such as our middle class tax cut, which will save all hard-working Canadian families hundreds of dollars a year, regardless of where they live. These are measures we have put in place in short order in this new session of Parliament after coming back and receiving a mandate from the people. I know the Conservative slogan was to bring it home, but there is only one party that brought it home, and that was the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although he did not really relate it back to the motion at hand, except at one point when he felt compelled to do so.

I would like to summarize in a few words what our opposition day motion is about. My colleague said that Quebec did not pay a carbon tax and so it is only natural that it did not receive anything. That is his understanding of the situation. In fact, it is an advance payment that some people received. It is an advance payment they received when they were no longer paying that expense. That would be like me telling someone that, in the next three months, it will not cost them anything, but I will give them more money because it will not cost them anything.

That money was not paid through the collection of the carbon tax, which no longer existed. It was given as an election gift on April 22, when people no longer needed it. I am not saying that there is no financial need, but it was not related to the carbon tax. This is also Quebec taxpayers' money. The member also mentioned British Columbia, which did not receive this money.

We do not just want to hear about Bill C‑4. I would like my colleague to understand the real issue, because what we really heard from him was a monologue. My colleague is an experienced MP. He has been in the House, on the government benches, for a few years now. Out of respect for my colleagues, I would like him to tell us whether he understood and whether he agrees that Quebec should get its fair share. The government has discriminated against us yet again.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, with deep respect to my colleague on the opposition benches, I understand very well the argument the Bloc is trying to make, and I do not agree with the argument. Quebec and the Bloc need to realize that Quebec opted out of the federal backstop when it created its own carbon pricing system at the provincial level. That means that it never contributed fuel charge payments to the federal government and never received rebate cheques.

The federal government decided to continue to rebate the fuel charges collected on behalf of Canadians in provinces that had a federal backstop, so why would we now, all of a sudden, not respect Quebec's autonomy, which it always wants us to do, by providing a rebate payment it did not pay into and a system it opted out of?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite spoke at length about tax cuts. While we support all tax cuts, in today's economy, it is just not enough. The average family in Kitchener is spending $800 more a year just to put food on the table. That completely cancels any benefit from this tax cut.

What real, lasting solutions will your government offer to help families struggling with this rising cost of living? Will it perhaps table a budget?

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

I will provide a little reminder to the hon. member to ask questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that, for two years in the House, the Conservative Party of Canada and its members claimed the consumer carbon price was the only cause, and did not allow for any other factors, of food price inflation. We have now removed the consumer carbon tax, and food prices are still going up, but the Conservatives are still making the same argument, which does not make any sense.

The other thing is that we, as a government, have moved forward with an income tax cut worth, on average, $840 a year. The truth is that we understand that Canadians are struggling, but we are the ones in government doing the things that are helping Canadians, driving affordability measures and putting more money in their pockets. We have many examples of that. Just in the last 12 sitting days of the House, we have moved forward on numerous tax cuts and measures that will build a stronger economy. The best way to assure Canadians—