Madam Speaker, first, I wish to inform the House that I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague and friend, the member from Repentigny.
Were it not for the calendar on the clerks' table, I would have thought that today was February 2, Groundhog Day. Why? Because today is a Conservative opposition day and, as they have done a hundred times before, they are proposing cutting environmental measures and providing more support for the oil and gas industry. Today, the Conservative Party is asking us to get rid of all environmental protection measures and to roll out the red carpet further for the oil and gas industry. However, there is a nice change with this motion, which is that they are making these traditional requests under the guise of sovereignty.
I would like to point out that members of the Pathways Alliance, which represents 80% of oil sands production, are mainly held by foreign interests. Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy are 73% foreign-owned and 60% American-owned, and yet the Conservatives are talking about Canadian sovereignty. ConocoPhillips Canada, the Canadian subsidiary of the American oil company, and MEG Energy, which was taken over by Cenovus Energy, are 85% foreign-owned. These businesses made record profits between 2021 and 2024, raking in $131.6 billion. They paid $79.7 billion in dividends, nearly three-quarters of which went to foreign shareholders, including 62% to American shareholders. That is what beautiful Canadian sovereignty looks like.
It would seem that trying to send more dividends to foreign interests is the Liberal and Conservative version of defending Canada's economic sovereignty. Federal politics looks like a cheerleading contest, with each party competing to win favour with this influential lobby.
Now, the Conservative Party is proposing getting rid of the industrial component of the carbon tax. However, the Liberal government has already eliminated the individual component of the carbon tax. Members will recall that up until March last year, the federal government had a carbon tax on fossil fuels in eight provinces that did not have their own carbon pricing system. Quebec and British Columbia were excluded because they had their respective provincial systems: the carbon exchange in Quebec and a provincial carbon tax in British Columbia.
Members will recall that 90% of the revenues collected through the federal carbon tax in the provinces were directly redistributed to residents in the form of quarterly rebates. The remaining 10% were invested in energy transition programs. The vast majority of households, or 8 out 10 households received more through rebates than they paid in the carbon tax through the targeted redistribution that focused on individuals instead of businesses. However, all of that was abolished. As soon as he took office, the new Prime Minister signed an order setting the consumer carbon tax at $0 per tonne. This measure came into force on April 1 last year before the tax was abolished through legislation.
Members will also recall that Ottawa decided to go ahead with one final rebate payment on April 22, which helped it at the ballot box. That decision cost the federal government $3.7 billion. The rebate had always been paid in advance, in anticipation of household spending. It was not a reimbursement, meaning that the final round of cheques was intended to cover the period from April to June of last year, when the carbon tax for individuals no longer applied.
Obviously, Quebeckers never received those cheques because Quebec has had its own carbon market since 2013. That did not stop Quebec taxpayers from having to pay for those federal cheques with their tax dollars during the election. The people of Quebec ended up paying for Canada's environmental recklessness. Quebec was penalized by Ottawa, by this government, for its efforts to fight climate change.
Members will recall that this injustice was condemned by the members of the Quebec National Assembly, including those of the Coalition Avenir Québec, the Quebec Liberal Party, Québec Solidaire and the Parti Québécois. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports Quebec and demands that Ottawa unconditionally pay Quebec compensation equivalent to the $814 million paid by Quebeckers for the $3.7 billion in fake April 22 carbon tax rebate cheques that Quebeckers were not entitled to get.
Unfortunately, the House approved that theft last spring, and I was deeply saddened to see that the Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec voted against the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. Here we see the party line and the pan-Canadian vision being put ahead of the interests of the people they are supposed to represent, at least for the two major parties.
At a time when the U.S. administration is sowing uncertainty by piling tariffs on our industries, it is important to strengthen our trade ties with reliable partners that provide a predictable environment.
In this regard, Quebec, which accounts for one-third of trade between Canada and Europe, attracts close to 40% of European investment in Canada. Quebec therefore has an advantage. In a way, it is the bridge between North America and Europe. The Bloc Québécois hopes Quebec will double its trade with Europe, including the U.K., from $42 billion to $84 billion within five years.
This brings me to the carbon border adjustment mechanism. The European Union adopted legislation in 2023, Regulation 2023/956, establishing Europe's carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM. In order to prevent carbon leakage and unfair competition from competitors located in places where it is free to pollute, Europe started to impose a tax adjustment on certain imported products from countries with no or low carbon pricing starting January 1, 2026. The U.K. adopted similar legislation in 2024, and it will come into force on January 1, 2027, which is next year.
Since the beginning of the year, when a product enters Europe, the European Union imposes an import tax equivalent to what the carbon pricing would have cost had it been manufactured in Europe. Initially, the tariff will only apply to certain categories of products, including aluminum, iron, steel, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen and electricity, and will be extended to other goods gradually. Although carbon adjustment is new, border tax adjustments are common and in line with trade rules. For example, the excise tax on tobacco or alcohol, which is charged when these products leave the factory when they are made in Canada, is imposed at the border when the goods are imported.
A number of countries have implemented measures to put a price on pollution. In 2023, the World Bank identified 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. That is 5 more than in 2022, 12 more than in 2021 and 69 more than 20 years ago. No country in the world has abolished carbon pricing, except Canada, which was the first to choose this path.
As mentioned earlier, federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec, which has its own cap-and-trade system. However, Quebec is not acting alone. Through the Western Climate Initiative, carbon credits are traded with companies in California and Washington State, two states whose combined GDP totals $4.8 trillion, or two and a half times the GDP of Canada excluding Quebec, which is $1.9 trillion. In the United States, there has never been carbon pricing at the federal level. It is the states that are taking action. In that respect, the election of the current U.S. President has not changed the situation.
Today, Canada finds itself swimming against the global tide, which puts Quebec at risk. In a world where pollution has a cost, Quebec enjoys a clear comparative advantage thanks to its abundant zero-emission energy production. As I mentioned, last spring the government abolished carbon pricing for individuals. Today, the Conservative Party is proposing to abolish it completely, including for polluting industries.
If Canada chooses to return to the 20th century and abolish or reduce carbon pricing for its industries, it will undermine Quebec's efforts to diversify its exports and intensify its trade with Europe. Since Quebec companies will be part of a country with no or low carbon pricing, their exports may be taxed. Consider our aluminum smelters, which are taxed at 50% in the United States and are turning to Europe. What is being discussed here puts them at risk.
We know that the United Kingdom and the entire European Union have an exemption system. Exporters from countries that already have carbon pricing are not subject to tariffs. Otherwise, it is on a case-by-case basis. This undermines Quebec's comparative advantage. That is why the Bloc Québécois opposes any federal measure intended to counter the negative effects of the Trump administration that also undermines Quebec's efforts to diversify its export markets. That is why we oppose any reduction in industrial emissions pricing in Canada outside Quebec that undermines our comparative advantage.
