SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

Mr. Dan Mazier

Apr/9/24 3:28:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, actually, the carbon tax went up by 23% on April 1.

13 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 3:28:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this opposition day motion. It feels like Groundhog Day once again—

20 words

The Speaker

Apr/9/24 3:28:31 p.m.
Watch

The member for Kingston and the Islands probably did not hear me, but I was calling for questions and comments. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

29 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Apr/9/24 3:28:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a farmer himself, as I am, could the member talk about how this carbon tax increase is impacting the cost of production for farmers right across this country, how that leads to higher costs for people who have to buy food, and why we are seeing more and more people in lineups at food banks and soup kitchens across the country, as well as about the issue of unaffordability that has been created by the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition? Could the member also reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister refuses to meet with the premiers to find a better solution that does not negatively impact Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

118 words

Mr. Dan Mazier

Apr/9/24 3:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. The introduction of the carbon tax and the evolvement of it over the last eight years have fundamentally changed rural Canada, how we do business and how we think about making money. Agriculture, being an energy-intensive industry, is being impacted the most, by far. Nowhere has the Liberal government even tried to address that. That is why we are bringing forward this motion today.

73 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 3:30:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will start where the last question left off, which was the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman's asking why the premiers cannot get together to come up with a new solution. I realize that is what part of the motion gets to, and my response would be that the whole point of the program that is set up is that we do not need to have one solution for the entire country. As a matter of fact, premiers are encouraged to come up with solutions that work just for their provinces; that is the whole point of the system. It is only when a premier refuses to do anything that the backstop comes in. For example, B.C. might decide to put a price on consumer use or put a consumer price on carbon. Quebec might decide that it might partner with other jurisdictions in North America through the western initiative on cap and trade. Another province might come up with a different solution. All that matters is that they reach a benchmark in terms of their commitment to reduce emissions. It is only when no plan is put forward by provinces that the backstop kicks in. Therefore I find the discussion we are having about premiers really interesting, when the Government of Canada is making it very easy for the premiers to develop and set up their own systems and their own plans to deal with carbon emissions. My assessment is that the current position the premiers have been taking on the price on pollution, the carbon tax and the federal backstop, is that they are just using the narrative of the Leader of the Opposition, what he has been saying about the carbon tax while never mentioning the rebates, as an opportunity to ride his political coattails to keep hammering down on an issue they know is false. No premier in this country knows that what the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, is saying is misinformation better than the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, does, because in 2021 she had a lot to say about pricing pollution. One would have thought that she was promoting the policy on behalf of the federal government with her conviction and the manner in which she had so much to say about pricing pollution. These are not my words, but the words of the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith. She said this in an interview for the Fraser Institute, in a discussion she was having with someone: “Let's begin with talking about when carbon pricing at the federal level was first introduced. We talked about it being $50 [a] tonne, and then recently we heard it's actually going to go to $170 [a] tonne over the next nine years.” She goes on to say, “That [sounds] like somebody sat down and done some number crunching and they've come up with [the] optimal value, as well as the optimal period of time to phase it in, and from the work you've done on this, you've even said that they're suggesting that this is going to have no impact on gross domestic product either...this almost seems like the perfect policy.” That was from Danielle Smith, who is now the Premier of Alberta, but when she made those comments in 2021 she was not. She went on to say, “I do my family's taxes, so I know we got $808.50. We get an extra little bump for me and my husband because we live in a rural environment. When I go back and look [to see] what I spent last year in carbon taxes, because I was working from home, I wasn't commuting, my gas bills were way down, and even the amount of tax that I paid on my home heating because we're principally natural gas where I live, I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer. I think a lot of people would be of the view that, if you're going to implement some kind of carbon or revenue-neutral carbon pricing, that is probably not a bad way of doing it.” These are Danielle Smith's own words from 2021, saying how much she believed in the carbon pricing system that we had developed and that is known throughout the world, and speaking in favour of it. Not only that, but doing the math herself and adding up her bills, she came to the conclusion that she gets more back than she pays. What happened to Danielle Smith since 2021? Oh, she became the leader of the United Conservative Party of Alberta, and now she has to suddenly start spinning the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition in the House because she looks at it as an opportunity for political gain. That is what we are dealing with right now: premiers in this country who are looking for short-term political gain, and it is all at the expense of future generations. It is all at the expense of doing what is right. Danielle Smith knows what is right in terms of pricing pollution. She said it herself. She did the math herself. She came to the conclusion herself that she was better off, but it did not stop her from doing a complete about-face the moment she started to represent the far right ideology of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton. Therefore, Canadians have to genuinely, legitimately ask themselves why the premier would make such glowing comments about pricing pollution and how she was better off, only to flip the switch. They can say a lot of things about the government when it comes to pricing pollution, but what they cannot say is that we have not been consistent, from day one, in terms of our commitment to putting a price on pollution, because we have. That side of the House has been all over the map. Stephen Harper first floated the idea around 2007 or 2008. The Conservative members who sit in the House, and everybody who ran under the Conservatives' banner in 2021, ran on a platform of pricing pollution. Now they have flipped back because they see an opportunity for a bit of political gain by confusing Canadians and intentionally misleading them, which is what they are doing. Inspired by Premier Smith, I did my own research on this because I wanted to see how carbon pricing is affecting me. I did the same thing as Danielle Smith did. In 2023, I took my Enbridge bills in Ontario; my natural gas is supplied by Enbridge. I added up the carbon levy on each bill, and in 2023 it came out to $379.93. I drive an electric car and my wife drives a hybrid electric car. Let us just assume for a second that we both drove internal combustion fuel vehicles. The average vehicle in Canada uses 1,667 litres of gas every year. If my wife and I were both driving, each had our own cars and were both filling up with the average amount of gas, we would have paid $238.55 each in carbon tax. I added my home heating, a car for myself and a car for my wife, with both of us purchasing gas. The total amount came out to approximately $830. Then I looked at my bank statement, at what got deposited into my account, not what the minister told me was going to be there or what were the talking points, but what actually got deposited. It worked out to $884.50 in 2023. I was over $50 better off, living in a house where I am using natural gas, and assuming my wife and I were both driving gas-consuming vehicles, which we were not. For the sake of the experiment, I assumed that we were. We are better off, just like Danielle Smith. I am better off with the price on pollution. Conservatives are going to say what I think I heard one member earlier today refer to it as the ripple-down effect. When a trucker has to move some groceries, and people buy them, those people are going to pay the extra amount; the carbon tax gets added onto it. I want to thank somebody on TikTok or Instagram who actually did the math on this. I was pretty impressed and told my staff that we should do similar math on this so we can confirm it. This is the conclusion he came to: There is an average of 120 boxes of cereal on a skid. Each transport tractor can carry 26 skids of cereal. That is a total of 3,120 boxes of cereal on a truck. The extra fuel costs that he calculated for driving an eighteen-wheeler 1,000 kilometres was $53.01. If he had driven 2,500 kilometres, it would have been $132.52. I am sure everyone can see where I am going with this. Take the added amount and divide it by the 3,120 boxes of cereal, and the increase to a box of cereal on a 1,000-kilometre drive was 1.7¢. That is what Conservatives are getting all worked up about: 1.7¢ on a box of cereal. Meanwhile, on the same day that the carbon price increased, April 1, I did not hear any outrage from my Conservative colleagues from Alberta about how Danielle Smith conveniently added another four cents to a litre. That would have done more damage to the math; it would have more than doubled it. That is what we are dealing with. With respect to other items, on milk for example, it works out to 1.4¢ for one package. This is what Conservatives are talking about. Then what they want to do, and I will hand it to them that they have done a decent job of doing it, is confuse Canadians. They want to tap into the anxiety created by inflation and the anxiety created by greedflation, and they use that anxiety against the very people who are experiencing it. They want to use it against those who are struggling right now, to make them think they are worse off with a price on pollution, although Danielle Smith herself said they are not but that they are better off. As a matter of fact, 94% of individuals who make less than $50,000 a year get back more than they put in. When the Leader of the Opposition gets up and starts going on about the impacts that people are going to feel as a result of this, he is intentionally misleading people. He is intentionally trying to tap into anxieties. People should be aware of that. The motion specifically asks to bring premiers together. As I said in the House earlier, they want to bring people together, but they do not even really have to because we do not need a collective idea for the whole country. Each province is at will to develop the system it wants. However, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, was at committee on March 27, and this is what he had to say when asked what he is going to do, what plan he might have to deal with this if he does not like the federal backstop: The goal is not for our employers to pay more. The goal is for them to emit less and to displace higher-emitting...like competing industries around the world. That is how we [will] build a strong Canadian economy. That is how we [will] lower global emissions...that's how we [will] employ Canadians in your community and in mine. That is a complete non-answer. The Canadian Press summed it up perfectly when it said, “Big polluters shouldn't be punished financially -- they should just emit less.” That is the position of the Premier of Saskatchewan: just pollute less. Earlier today in an exchange, I heard a Conservative member say that what Canadians need are just more options, options where they could be purchasing products that are contributing less. We incentivize the marketplace for a reason. We did not just magically get off the incandescent light bulb and find out that the LED light bulb was so much better. Jurisdictions throughout the world were saying that incandescent light bulbs are very inefficient and that maybe we should start phasing them out. Incentivizing the marketplace to start coming up with new solutions is how we got to the compact fluorescent bulb. Then someone said we could do the same with LED light bulbs and make them even more efficient, and that is how we got to the LED light bulb. We did not get there because those who were making the incandescent light bulbs, which only lasted six months, suddenly said, “I have a better way of doing this.” They did not suddenly realize that they could give people a better product that would be more efficient, last longer and be virtually the same price, after it had been introduced in the market for a long time. Of course they did not do that. They were incentivized by the decision-making in the marketplace, and that is exactly what the price on pollution is. It is about encouraging people to make different decisions. When somebody says that they are currently using natural gas to heat their home and could go to a heat pump, or somebody says that maybe it is time to look at an electric vehicle, those people are making new decisions about the products they want to use and the services they want. As a result, they can end up better off, especially when we look at the rebates that are available at federal and provincial levels to do things such as install heat pumps or buy electric cars. This is where we are right now. We are making a transition. Conservatives want to pretend the world is not changing. They want to pretend oil and gas will be here forever. All they care about is, “Burn, baby. Burn,” and “Drill, baby. Drill.” We could do whatever we wanted to in this country to try to halt the production of electric vehicles and prevent the sale of them, but the world is changing. Of cars sold in China last year, 40% were electric vehicles. The world is changing. Conservatives need to figure out that it is time to get on board. It is time for Canada to be a leader. It is time for Canada to be at the forefront of these new technologies, so we can be developing them and exporting them around the world, not living in the past. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition is looking to do anything to assume power. Even if that means exploiting Canadians' fears and their anxieties to do it, he will do it. This is because, at the end of the day, he does not care. He does not care that 94% of those making less than $50,000 get more back in the rebate than they pay on the price on pollution. All he cares about are the big emitters and the big companies and allowing them to continue to pollute for free, but we do not pollute for free anymore. It is the exact same concept as paying property taxes back in our constituencies. We pay to get garbage picked up at the side of the road. We pay to recycle. We pay to compost. That is us paying for pollution, and there is no difference when we talk about paying to pollute into the atmosphere. It is the exact same concept, but for some reason, nobody on the other side bats an eye when someone says they have to charge money to take a bag of garbage to the dump. Nobody bats an eye at that, but as soon as we say we have to charge money to put those pollutants in the air that will be there for generations, then the Conservatives suddenly have a problem. This is the right thing to do. It is what is happening around the world, and it is really time for the Conservatives to get on board.

2743 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Apr/9/24 3:48:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on this very important motion we have before us today, the Liberal member, while giving his speech, talked about how Conservatives are going on and on about how unaffordable things are, the carbon tax and, in his own words, “getting all worked up”. We know that families and small businesses are having a really tough time. I have here a couple of bills from small businesses in my riding. On one of them, the cost of gas is $159.67, and the carbon tax is $231.87. On the other one, the cost of gas is $311.31, and the carbon tax is $452.08. For this one in particular, the small business owner told me that that amount would have been his profit. Of course, we also know that there is GST on top of the carbon tax as well, so how can that Liberal member justify this, when we have small businesses that are paying these types of bills? They are having such a tough time already, they are barely affording to pay the bills, and that is before they even get this tax bill.

191 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/9/24 3:50:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I never said Canadians are not having a tough time. The world has gone through a lot in the last five years. The world has experienced inflation because of a whole bunch of events. The Conservatives think that the Prime Minister is incapable of doing just about anything, yet they credit him for bringing in inflation throughout the entire world. Every single day they get up to talk about how the Prime Minister is the cause of inflation. The inflationary impacts are happening throughout the world. I am not saying Canadians are not having a hard time and have not had a hard time over the last few years. What I am saying is that the Leader of the Opposition is using that anxiety to try to turn Canadians on each other. That is what he has been doing with the carbon tax. We have had a carbon tax since 2018. I will ask this of the people watching at home: Did this not just kind of pop up? Do they not feel as though this issue just came to light within the last six to eight months, even though we have had the carbon tax since 2018? Why do they think that is? There is nothing new. It has been around. It is because the Leader of the Opposition has suddenly started to use it as a weapon to motivate people's anxiety and to use it against them.

242 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Apr/9/24 3:51:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, over the course of 2024, I have been paying keen attention to gas prices in my region. What I noticed was, from February to March, the price jumped by 30¢ per litre. It went from $1.59 per litre to $1.89 per litre. British Columbia has its own system. On the day of the carbon tax increase on April 1, it went from $1.90 to $1.93. One week after that, in many regions in my area, it then shot up again on its own to about $2.04. There was a massive increase, all on its own, compared to the April 1 increase, yet there is complete deafening silence from Conservatives. I believe this is because they do not want to upset their oil masters in Alberta. There is deafening silence. At the agriculture committee, we had some figures presented to us by Dr. Jim Stanford, who showed us that, from 2019 to 2023, oil and gas profits in this country went up by over 1,000%. What are my hon. colleague's remarks on the deafening silence we hear from Conservatives when it comes to oil and gas profits and how the oil and gas companies are gouging Canadian families, not only in my riding, but also in ridings right across the country, from coast to coast to coast?

226 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/9/24 3:52:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent point, and he is absolutely right it is silence from the other side. To add even more on to that, Premier Smith in Alberta also timed her four-cent increase for April 1. We have the oil and gas companies piling on, and we have the Government of Alberta piling on, but everybody is pointing the finger at the federal government because of three cents. That is what I find so disheartening. He is absolutely right. Where is the outrage when it comes to the wicked profits being made by the oil and gas sector? Why do we not see outrage from the Conservatives on that? Why do we not hear outrage when Danielle Smith increases the per litre gas tax by more than the carbon tax on the exact same day? It is because that does not serve their political purpose.

148 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/9/24 3:53:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since the carbon tax does not affect Quebec, I will engage my Liberal colleague on another topic. In his speech, he acknowledged that times are tough. Housing is one of the major concerns for any household. I have just spent two weeks in my riding. During those two weeks, I have been hearing about these attempts by the federal government, particularly through the Programme de la taxe sur l'essence et de la contribution du Québec, or TECQ, to impose conditions on housing. Where I come from, people are not having it. Cities have land to protect. Cities have urban plans. What they want is for the federal government to do what it has to do, which is to transfer the money and not impose an additional tier, additional delays and duplication. The cities back home really do not want these housing conditions for the TECQ.

150 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/9/24 3:54:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member started off talking about Quebec not having a carbon tax. Ontario never used to have a carbon tax either. As a matter of fact, when the system was set up, Ontario was still under the western initiative of a cap-and-trade model that Quebec was under. They signed onto that at the same time. Doug Ford came along, saying he did not want anything to do with it, and got rid of it. Doug Ford is now criticizing the federal government, asking “Why are you doing this to my province?” Ontario would have been in the exact same position as Quebec had it not done that. The member raises good questions about housing, but this is another example of Canadians needing support. This is another example of how we are trying to support Canadians in many different ways through various initiatives, whether it is helping people with rent geared to their income or helping to subsidize below-market rent construction of housing. We have rolled out a number of programs. I understand the member has an issue with respect to the exact way that it has rolled out in her municipality, or in Quebec, but the Minister of Housing has gone to each municipality, at least outside of Quebec, to strike a deal with the municipalities. He did that in Kingston, saying that the federal government will provide $27 million as long as the municipality brings in measures to expedite the building of housing. The federal minister is going into communities throughout the country. That is commitment. That is looking for solutions.

269 words

Quebec

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Apr/9/24 3:56:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to set some of the background narrative. The hon. member mentioned what Danielle Smith spoke about three years ago. Last week, she did talk about the difference between $65 and $80. She also talked about the comparison of the government's plan with that of the Alberta NDP, which only rebated a portion of revenue to low- and middle-income earners, when it was in government. There is a little more to the story than what the member spoke about. The other aspect has to do with the price of oil. The fact that it has been down for the last three months is the reason why that four cents was put back on it, but because the oil price is going back up, it could well go down even more than that four cents. Could that happen with the carbon tax?

147 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/9/24 3:57:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is what Danielle Smith said, “Let's begin with talking about when carbon pricing at the federal level was first introduced. We talked about it being $50 per tonne, and then recently we heard it's actually going to be $170 per tonne over the next nine years. That seems like somebody sat down and done some number crunching and they've come up with [the] optimal value, as well as the optimal period of time to phase it in, and from the work you've done on this, you've even said that they're suggesting that this is going to have no impact on the gross domestic product...this almost seems like the perfect policy.” Danielle Smith had all the trust in the experts in 2021 to develop the pricing mechanism on their own, but now, suddenly, there is an issue with those experts. Members can judge this for themselves. What has happened between 2021 and now? She became the leader of the far right party in Alberta.

175 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Apr/9/24 3:58:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the federal government is increasing the price on carbon to $80 per tonne, and I thought it would be interesting to look at what the biggest emitters in Canada are paying per tonne for their pollution. The Canadian Climate Institute says that the average price they are paying is $4.96 per tonne. That is $80 versus $4.96. Now, before the member for Kingston and the Islands says that consumers get a rebate, etc., etc., the industry gets something much richer than a rebate. It gets $18 billion in subsidies. I bet the industry will get more in subsidies than it pays in carbon pricing. Why does the government keep letting the biggest polluters in our country—

121 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/9/24 3:59:03 p.m.
Watch

I have to give a few seconds to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to answer.

18 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/9/24 3:59:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not going to disagree with a lot of what that member said. If he is looking for more opportunities to further tighten money or to talk about rebates that are going back to big oil, I will have an open ear to listen to what he has to say. I think it is also really important to remember that sometimes, when we subsidize the fossil fuel industry, it is to do important things such as clean up orphan oil wells, which perhaps—

87 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/9/24 3:59:31 p.m.
Watch

We will resume debate with the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

16 words

Lotbini

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Apr/9/24 3:59:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from King—Vaughan. It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the importance of having the premiers meet with the federal government on issues that are very important to the future of our society. As I think about the future of our society, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the arrival of my seventh grandchild, my third grandson, Octave Gourde. Octave joins my dream team of grandchildren, which includes Maéva, Loïc, Béatrice, Delphine, Arthur and Mathilde. Members will understand that my primary motivation here in the House is to ensure that my grandchildren have a very promising future in our country. We are all at a crossroads regarding our country's future and the direction we must go in the face of the Liberal government's policy failures since 2015. The Liberals' relentless pursuit of a carbon tax is currently producing mediocre results when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a monumental failure considering that the punitive carbon tax policy has not reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Quebec has a carbon exchange. This approach, which has been recommended for over 10 years now, has shown that it does not help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those of us on this side of the House advocate for science and technology. Specific targets were set for successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we all know how important that is. However, here we are, faced with the fact that, for almost 10 years, it has not worked. It is high time to take stock and determine how we can make a meaningful, direct and tangible impact on our environment in the future. That is why we are calling on the federal government to hold a meeting with the provincial premiers to establish a clear and precise strategy on the future of the carbon tax, which is taking money out of Canadians' wallets. It is very important that we make a move and take stock. This is how far we have come. Let us act on behalf of our children and grandchildren across the country. We have a duty here in the House to do the right thing. We need a vision for the future of our country and we need to set reasonable terms to improve the lives of Canadians. We are facing very precarious situations. There is a serious lack of housing in this country. Millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Millions of Canadians are even struggling to put food on the table. There is proof of that. The federal government wants to implement a plan to feed our children at school. Let us consider how far we have come. It is very sad. We have to feed our children at school like some of the developing countries we assisted a few years ago. This goes to show how much the Liberals' policies since 2015 have changed our country, but in the wrong way. Our Canada is in jeopardy, it is not the same as it once was, and that really scares me. There is no doubt that members on this side of the House want a new government as soon as possible. We have a clear plan to restore hope to Canadians. We have a clear plan to lower interest rates, reduce inflation and increase housing construction. We need to give all Canadians hope that their work will pay the bills. For the sake of their legacy, we need to stay the course and drive inflation down. We can no longer afford to have a Prime Minister leading a federal Liberal government that not only insists on keeping the carbon tax, but recklessly increases it by 23%. This Prime Minister has caused economic misery across Canada. Instead of offering Canadians relief, he decided to increase the carbon tax by another 23% on April 1. This is just one step in the Prime Minister's plan to make everything more expensive by raising the carbon tax over the next six years. Seventy per cent of Canadians and 70% of premiers have called on the Prime Minister to walk the increase back, but he is refusing to listen or to open his eyes to the disaster he has caused. The premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta also wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him to call an emergency meeting, but he did not listen. No doubt he will not listen after this motion either, and yet it would be so easy for the Prime Minister to understand that if we tax the farmer who produces the food and the trucker who transports it, we are also taxing those who buy the food. That is why, as Conservatives, we support our common-sense leader, who is moving a motion in the House of Commons today calling on the Prime Minister to convene an emergency meeting on the carbon tax crises with Canada's provincial premiers to discuss the possibility of allowing the provinces to opt out of the federal carbon tax and to pursue other responsible ideas to lower greenhouse gas emissions without a tax. Common-sense Conservatives will continue to work with Canada's premiers to lower prices for Canadians and fight for a carbon tax election to permanently axe the tax on everything and everyone. The choice will be simple for Canadians in the next election. We will say goodbye to a government that wants to tax Canadians. We need a government that wants to really help Canadians and put more money back in their pockets so that everyone can have a prosperous future in this country, a future for us, our children and our future grandchildren. We need a government that will make work pay again and restore the value of our hard-earned dollars and efforts. When voters are faced with a choice, they will remember which parties recklessly supported this bad government and voted for the outrageous, wasteful spending that has doubled our country's debt since 2015. If not for the NDP and Bloc Québécois, we could have brought down this illegitimate, scheming government. Canadians will remember. I am confident they will. In closing, I would like to know why the Prime Minister is so afraid to meet with the provinces when he is not shy about sticking his nose where it does not belong when it comes to respecting provincial jurisdictions. It should come as no surprise that this princely Prime Minister believes he can do whatever he wants. He refuses to respect the jurisdictional boundaries that were established by the fathers of Confederation. This meeting could simply set the record straight on what the federal government needs to do and also remind it that its management of the country is disastrous and that it cannot even achieve its own objectives in areas under its own jurisdiction. That being said, if everyone does their job and works together as a real team, all of us federal, provincial and municipal legislators could help our economy thrive and help all Canadians live better. In the next election, we will have two diametrically opposed choices: a Prime Minister with a track record that is not worth the cost, leading a government that has caused rents, mortgage payments and down payments to double and has run record deficits that have made interest rates skyrocket; or a common-sense Conservative government that will work with Canada's premiers to lower prices for Canadians. Conservatives will fight for a carbon tax election to permanently axe the tax on everything for everyone. I hope that election will be called sooner rather than later.

1301 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 4:08:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the consistency of the Conservative Party is truly amazing. No matter what region of the country its MPs are from, they want to mislead Canadians. Members from the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia should be ashamed of themselves. Quebec and B.C. already have a price on pollution, and so they do not have the backstop of the federal carbon rebate, carbon tax system. When we take a look at it, we are talking about over 10 million Canadians who do not pay the carbon tax, as they refer to it, or receive the carbon rebate. The Conservatives continue to give misinformation no matter where they go. I wonder if there is any humility within the Conservative caucus. Is there not any member who will stand in their place and indicate that this misinformation does a great disservice to the whole concept of a price on pollution?

150 words