SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24

Mar/21/24 11:22:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I would go as far as to say that it is a pleasure to talk about the carbon tax. First, I would like to thank the Conservatives for having given us a break. Yesterday, we did not talk about the carbon tax. We talked about other things. Still, we had a day's respite. Since they had a day to talk about something else, we can see that they are beginning to diversify their intellectual assets and issues to debate. I would like to thank them. Obviously, today we are debating a motion that is unacceptable, because it is dishonest and misleads the House. I am even surprised that this motion complies with the rules of the House. Not only does it suggest that the carbon tax will apply in Quebec, which is not the case, but it tells us that the increase will take place on April 1, whereas it is spread out over a number of years. The motion is simply dishonest and, above all, it is a motion that rejects Quebec. I will call on my past experience as an educator and do some teaching. I will ask the Conservatives to repeat the following after me. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Even when I say it slowly, they do not understand. We could not go any slower than that, but they still do not understand. We voted many times to say that we had lost confidence in the government. We did so every time it was in Quebec’s interest. Since 2015, we have not voted in favour of any budget bill. We voted against the emergency measures when we thought they were contrary to Quebec’s interests. If the Conservatives wanted to move non-confidence, they could have found a whole host of unacceptable things that Quebeckers do not like. There is nothing in the motion about the absence of $6 billion in health transfers. There is nothing to protect Quebec when it comes to immigration powers. A government could be brought down over these issues. There is nothing about returning Quebec's share of the federal cultural budgets. They want to shrink government, but they do not want to transfer power to Quebec. When it comes to infrastructure, municipalities could be allowed to make their own decisions without having to follow federal orders. The Conservatives have no interest at all in that. We could allow Quebec to implement its own environmental laws. The Conservatives want to shrink the federal government, but they want to maintain control. Someone needs to explain to me what kind of economic conservatism that is. What about Quebec’s right to withdraw from federal programs with full compensation? They want more government, but they are Conservative. There is the lifting of conditions on housing. There are tons of things the Conservatives could have put in their motion to satisfy Quebec, so that we could vote to show our lack of confidence in the government, but they decided to reject Quebec. I have said this many times, but nothing has changed. The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the carbon tax applies to Quebec. It does not apply directly to Quebec. We have our own cap and trade system. It does not apply indirectly by regulation, because our clean fuel regulations are more restrictive. I explained it again to a Conservative from western Canada yesterday in the lobby. His eyes almost popped out of his head. He did not even know that. The carbon tax does not apply indirectly to Quebec because, according to the calculations of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada, the impact of the federal carbon tax on the price of goods in Quebec is in the thousandths of a percentage point. Now the Conservatives are telling us that, if there are variations in the price of emissions allowances in Quebec’s system, it is the federal government’s fault. The member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis helped implement Quebec’s system when she was a Liberal cabinet minister in Quebec. The Conservatives did not make these statements in just any committee. The member for Lethbridge made a statement Tuesday in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In the newspapers in her riding, this member said that francophone artists from Quebec were a bunch of losers who could not achieve commercial success. The Conservative member for Lethbridge who said this was suddenly interested in the impact of the carbon tax on Quebec culture. She cares about the impact of the carbon tax on losers in Quebec. She said it was very serious. Of course, there is a knight in shining armour on the committee, the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, who came to his colleague's rescue when he said that he would join the member for Lethbridge in explaining the collateral damage of the carbon tax on the arts community. I would like to tell the member for Drummond that he understands very well that Quebec chose the carbon exchange system adopted almost ten years ago, but because of pressure from a Liberal government. Yet, it was the Harper government in Ottawa that was regulating clean fuels. It was the Harper government. As we know, under Quebec's system, that is to say the system implemented by the Liberal member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, which I like to repeat because she was a Liberal in the Charest government, the number of permits traded is set in advance. It was determined by an order in council before the current government came to power. We know the number of permits that will be traded, even if there is a change of government. In addition, their price is increasing. The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the federal carbon tax applies to Quebec. They must be at their 18th carbon tax. To hear them talk, that is all there is in the economy: carbon taxes. That is what they are trying to make us believe. It is true, however, that the price of carbon has gone up in Quebec. The Conservatives blame this on “justinflation” yet, in Europe, the price of permits has increased from 20 euros to 100 euros since 2005, and they are planning to reduce the number of permits by 62% by 2030. “Justinflation” has an impact as far away as Europe? Everything is in everything—

1101 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/21/24 11:28:21 a.m.
Watch

I would remind the member that he must not use the name of the Prime Minister in the House. He has done that twice now. The hon. member for Mirabel.

30 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/21/24 11:28:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for the Conservatives, everything is in everything. When it comes time to mislead Quebeckers and lie to them, everything is in everything. Is it the federal government's fault if the price of carbon went up in New Zealand and Switzerland? That is what the Conservatives are trying to make Quebecers believe. Why? Because, according to the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, everything is in everything. One of Voltaire's characters, who is a favourite of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot with whom I will be sharing my time, Pangloss, was always trying to come up with causal connections. The Conservatives are making connections indiscriminately. For these Conservative members from Quebec, everything is in everything. It is because of ice cream sales that more people drown in the summer. It is because Scarlett Johansson is in so many movies that the planet is heating up. It is because of the Internet that there are no more fish in the St. Lawrence estuary. That is their logic. The carbon tax and the price of carbon in Quebec went up at the same rate as Internet rates. Is there a connection? No, absolutely not. The Conservatives' attitude just shows that they will do anything for oil and that they will do anything to abandon Quebec and not do anything about Quebec's economy. That is why we want an independent Quebec. Since 2017, the federal government has injected $1.75 billion into major industrial clusters to develop Canada's and Quebec's economy. Montreal got the artificial intelligence cluster. The federal government invested $1.75 billion across Canada, one-fifth of that going to Quebec, but is giving the oil companies $83 billion in aid over the next 10 years. We are giving up 237 potential Canadian Silicon Valleys to invest in oil. That is 237 industrial clusters. At the same time, there is no national forestry policy for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and eastern and northern Quebec, and no aerospace policy for Mirabel, Longueuil and Dorval. We are still waiting for that. There is no policy on generic or patented drugs. We lost all that to Manitoba, because western Canada had to have its share of the clusters. There is no industrial cluster for automation in Drummondville, despite the fact that Quebec is a world leader. They are taking $83 billion of Quebec taxpayer money, one-fifth of which is paid by people who get a paycheque every two weeks from Quebec. We are paying for the oil. Do members know what they tell us then? They tell us that Quebeckers are getting equalization payments. The reality today is that the Conservatives, by misleading Parliament, are telling us that they want to trigger an election about an issue that has nothing to do with Quebec. Parliament, being sovereign, will make its own decision. The day an election is called and we stand before our constituents, Bloc Québécois members will be proud to have been the adults in the House. We will be proud to be in the party that, every day we sat here, even if it was not easy, even if we were faced with disinformation, even if, on the ground, we were faced with the Conservatives’ institutionalized lying, had the courage to stand up to the Conservative Party and the other parties and to stick to the issues that will ensure Quebeckers a prosperous future. We will always be proud of that.

591 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Mar/21/24 11:32:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will undoubtedly repeat the same thing as my colleague: everything is in everything. Quebec has the carbon exchange, while the other provinces have the carbon tax. When the carbon tax in the other provinces exceeds Quebec’s carbon exchange, Quebec will either have to adjust the carbon exchange upward or agree to implement the carbon tax so that Quebec pays the same price. In recent years, the carbon exchange has been higher than the carbon tax, which means that Quebec paid more for a litre of gas. Now we are nearing equality, and soon the carbon tax in the other provinces will be more expensive than Quebec’s carbon exchange, which means Quebec will have to pay. Does my colleague think that the Liberal government will impose the carbon tax on Quebec?

137 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/21/24 11:33:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Mirabel thinks that the member for Lévis—Lotbinière does not understand anything. Quebec opted for a system that regulates the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted. We have a number of emission permits that decreases every year and ensures that, in 2035, regardless of the price of permits on the market, we will achieve our goal. That is why, whether the member believes it or not, the federal government did not ask Quebec to raise its price. Quebec does not control prices. What the member for Lévis—Lotbinière is saying implies that the Government of Canda could tell California how to run its carbon market. I hope he realizes how ridiculous what he just said in the House is.

133 words

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

Mar/21/24 11:34:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague put together his arguments very well and delivered his intervention very passionately, with probably a lot of assistance from the university he attended, which is the best university in Canada. In all seriousness, what I hear a lot is misinformation coming from Conservatives that somehow the federal backstop is applied in Quebec, when in reality Quebec has been very progressive on pricing pollution through the cap and trade model, with California and other states in the United States. Unfortunately Ontario used to be a part but has now taken itself out of it. Quebec has been so progressive that the tax does not even apply to Quebec, yet day after day after day, Conservatives get up and say that it does. Why does he think Conservatives are doing that? Does he think they are specifically trying to spread misinformation to Quebeckers?

145 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/21/24 11:35:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives are exploiting people's distress in the face of a situation that has been difficult, inflation and a tough economic situation. I also think that the Conservatives from Quebec are kowtowing to their leader to get ministerial positions, and that involves compromising their values and principles. Now, Quebeckers are benefiting from the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. Since Quebec has clean energy, we have fewer corporate polluters. We therefore have fewer requests for such allowances, which means that we are able to meet the targets that we set at a lower cost. That is why the impact of the cap-and-trade system on Quebeckers' pockets is much smaller than what we would see in the western provinces, where there is a lot of pollution. Quebeckers decided to use their environmental sovereignty to set up an effective, functional program that benefits Quebec consumers, and we intend to keep that system.

161 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/21/24 11:36:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel. His speeches are always passionate and informative. I would like to add a comment. That same member from Lethbridge called me a dictator in the House just because I wanted to protect Quebec artists who are leading the way and deserve to be supported. Wanting to protect artists from Quebec does not make me a dictator. I would like to come back to my colleague's question. How can disinformation have gone so far that Conservatives are voting against the agreement with Ukraine, saying that it will increase the carbon tax in Ukraine? That makes no sense.

105 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/21/24 11:36:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of listening to the Conservatives say that they are for the free market and capitalism. When it comes time to help our media, suddenly we have to allow market forces to decide and let our media disappear. When it comes time to promote our culture and help us defend our artists, then we have to allow the free U.S. market decide and let our artists disappear. However, when it comes time to take billions and tens of billions of dollars of Quebeckers' money to pay for a pipeline, suddenly we need government intervention. As we have heard here, there are Conservatives who, in Mulroney's day, participated in privatizing crown corporations within the Mulroney government. They are seated today and have never publicly come out against the fact that we give tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money toward pipelines. That is Conservative inconsistency. If anyone wants me to start with the inconsistencies of the member for Lethbridge, or other members of that caucus, I am game. We could have a take-note debate about it one of these nights.

190 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/21/24 11:38:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset and unequivocally that we do not have confidence in the Liberal government. My colleagues and I have no problem putting that on the record in this Parliament. That is why we have voted against the government on confidence votes, such as budgets and throne speeches, at almost every opportunity over the past few years. Today the Conservatives are calling for a confidence vote, but they did not just move a motion calling on Parliament to declare non-confidence in the government. The motion does not say simply that the House hast lost confidence in the government. Rather, the motion links that confidence to a specific issue. What, then, could be the issue that warrants the House toppling the government and forcing Canada into an election? Is it immigration? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it the billions of dollars paid annually to oil companies, which continue to play fast and loose with the price at the pump? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it the nationalization of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost $34 billion to build, and which will mostly be paid for by taxpayers? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about outsourcing entire areas of government management to large corporations? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about challenging Quebec's secularism? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about eliminating Quebec's agricultural model? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about first nations issues? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about medical assistance in dying? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about the national and constitutional issue? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. We are witnessing the Ottawa coalition in all its glory. How ironic to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying earlier that the only difference between the Bloc and the Liberals is that they disagree on which city should be the capital. For one thing, that is utterly false. For another, we do agree that there is a pretty big difference between a capital where we make up less than one-quarter and a capital where we make up 100%. That right there is an irreconcilable difference, and the Conservatives are Liberals on that subject, too. These issues are deeply important to Quebeckers, but the motion is not about these issues. The Conservatives say their motion is fully in tune with Quebeckers' interests, so what is it about? It is about a tax that does not apply in Quebec. The Conservatives' motion calls for an election that would serve as a de facto referendum on raising the carbon tax in the rest of Canada. In actual fact, not raising the carbon tax in the rest of Canada, or cancelling it altogether, could hurt Quebec. If the rest of Canada stops pricing pollution while Quebec continues to do so with its own system, the carbon exchange, households will be at a disadvantage. Let me remind everyone that the carbon exchange was set up by a Liberal government that included the current member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and it was hailed by the current member for Louis-Saint-Laurent while they were both MNAs. That makes sense. Today, the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing a referendum election to push for a tax and climate injustice at the expense of Quebec’s competitiveness. At least it is clear. We can say that Quebec’s contract with Erin O’Toole is long gone. This also shows us just how insignificant the Quebec wing is within its party. In fact, I find it hard to believe that they themselves do not understand it. Almost all of them stood firmly behind the very Liberal Jean Charest, their leader and the father of the carbon exchange, so I cannot believe that they do not understand this. Even if the leader of the official opposition says today that Quebec is very important to him, we can clearly see that he does not even listen to his own members from Quebec. There has been quite a scandal surrounding the matter of energy and energy prices, but the scandal is not the carbon tax. While ordinary citizens are struggling to make ends meet, some people are lining their pockets. While ordinary citizens are being hard hit by inflation, a tiny minority is making record profits. In recent years, the oil and gas extraction sector raked in record profits of $38 billion over three years, and half of that was made in 2022 alone. This is hardly the inflationary reality facing the constituents of all members of the House. Since 70% of the shareholders of these companies are foreigners, that money is not even staying within Canada. What is even more outrageous is the fact that the gift is doubled. Users pay at the pump, but since they are also taxpayers, they also send their taxes to Ottawa, which sends the revenues from those taxes to the ultra-rich so that they can continue to live the good life. It seems to me that they do not need any gifts given the record profits they have been making in recent years. I do not think they need them. In the last two budgets, the federal government stated its intention to implement six tax credits for oil companies. According to the information provided by the Department of Finance, oil companies will receive a total of $83 billion by 2035. Is that the green transition in Ottawa? I am relying on the Department of Finance's numbers, but we all know that the government tends toward cost overruns in general. I do not think that it will cost any less than that in the end. These oil and gas companies are the Conservatives' real friends, not the poor people who have to line up at food banks or struggle to find housing. Someone tell them to stop this nonsense. We do not believe them. We did not believe them before, and we believe them even less now. If the Conservatives had moved a non-confidence motion to take a stand against the huge profits of oil and gas companies or end the big corporate welfare system funded at taxpayers' and users' expense, we would probably have come onboard. However, a motion like this one just makes me want to tell them to stop wasting our time.

1117 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Mar/21/24 11:45:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, which certainly lacked subtlety. I just want to double-check one thing. I think my colleague is going to vote with the Liberals yet again to shore up a corrupt government that is costing Canadians a fortune and causing a host of problems. Can my colleague simply tell the House whether he is going to vote with the Liberal government yet again?

72 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/21/24 11:45:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we should make a note of the date. Today is March 21, 2024, and a Conservative has just told me that I lack subtlety. Now we have seen it all. That being said, we are also no strangers to surprises in Parliament. I will simply respond by repeating what I have already said: We do not have confidence in this government. However, the Conservatives are talking about overthrowing a government and triggering an election over a motion based on a false premise that is an affront to Quebec. Given the current economic context, triggering an election on spurious grounds is extremely serious. As I said, we would have backed the Conservatives if their motion had included an issue that actually affects Quebeckers, especially if that issue were not rooted in a position that is harmful to Quebeckers. I would like to hear the Conservatives truly denounce oil and gas company profits one day, because that is the real scandal.

161 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/21/24 11:47:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the handouts to big oil and gas. We just heard that the Trans Mountain pipeline is going to cost taxpayers $34 billion. That money could have gone into climate solutions. We had the environment minister come to the environment committee, and I asked him if it was a mistake. He refused to answer. He said that the question should be for the finance minister. I told him that he was at the cabinet table and that he makes decisions with the government, yet he still refused to take accountability for the decision. Could you talk about the lack of courage from the Liberals when it comes to taking on oil and gas?

121 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/21/24 11:47:51 a.m.
Watch

I will not talk about that, and I will remind the member that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

37 words

Bagot
Saint

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/21/24 11:48:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, through you, I will respond to my colleague. I would say that this undermines two things. First, it undermines the very idea of government, that a government must govern. It also undermines the very idea of the often ridiculous parliamentary system that we use, which is based on the principle of ministerial responsibility. The government must be accountable to Parliament. I will admit that I was unaware of the incident my colleague mentioned. This is the first I have heard of it. Unfortunately, I am not surprised. We have a government representative who, in answering the parliamentarians to whom he is supposed to be accountable in a committee, says that it is not his responsibility even though it is something that is completely under his purview. He could simply say that he does not have the information. That is one thing. That is honest. However, for him to say that it is not his responsibility, when his government is meant to be accountable to parliamentarians, does not make sense to me.

173 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/21/24 11:49:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Victoria. The Trans Mountain pipeline is a huge scam that flies in the face of climate action. It comes at an unbelievable cost of over $34 billion, for a pipeline that makes no sense, which is what the private sector, in the shape of Kinder Morgan, had decided. I would like to hear my Bloc Québécois colleague's thoughts on that.

75 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/21/24 11:50:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us speak plainly. My colleague knows our position on that pipeline. Let us not forget that, generally speaking, fossil fuels are archaic. We need a transition. That does not mean that people will start working in that area overnight. A transition means having a plan. It means starting at point A and, in a few years, arriving at point B. We need to plan ahead, year by year.

71 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/21/24 11:50:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay. Right now, Canadians are struggling. They are struggling with the cost of living and paying for rent, groceries and medication. They are struggling because they are also feeling the profound impacts of the climate crisis. Thousands of people were evacuated from their homes in the wildfires last year. Hundreds of people died in the heat dome that hit British Columbia. There have been hurricanes, drought and extreme flooding. The climate crisis is here now. Unfortunately, there is a party on one side of the House that denies that climate change is even a crisis. On the other side of the House, there is a party that makes promises, breaks promises and talks about climate action but does not take the action necessary that would match the scale and urgency of the crisis we are in. I have heard from so many people in my home community of Victoria who care about the environment. They want to protect their families. They are choking on smoke during the summers. They are seeing the profound impacts this crisis is having across our country. They are also very concerned about how they are going to make the rent next month or pay their mortgages. They are very concerned about the skyrocketing costs of food, gas, medication, everything. People are struggling to get by. Unfortunately, they do not have a government that is looking out for them. Instead, we see the people at the very top, CEOs of the wealthiest corporations, making record profits. The oil and gas industry is gouging Canadians at the pump, continuing to rake in billions of dollars and then getting handouts from the government in carbon capture and storage and billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies that consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have been giving them for decades. Grocery store CEOs are making millions of dollars while everyday Canadians are struggling to afford their bills. While the Conservatives today have put forward a motion pretending that they care and want to give Canadians a break, New Democrats know that corporate greed is what is driving up inflation. Corporate greed is driving up the cost of groceries. Real estate developers and rich investors are treating our housing market like a place to get rich. When they look at the housing market, they see something great that is working for them. When everyday Canadians experience the housing market, it is a crisis. It is scary. It is scary for people not knowing whether they will be renovicted. It is scary for them not to know, if they lose their homes, whether they will be able to find one they are able to afford or whether they are going to be able to pay their mortgages next month. The Conservatives' governing body, 50% of it, is made up of lobbyists from these very industries: real estate investors, oil and gas, pharmaceutical companies. It is no wonder they do not want to take on corporate greed. It is no wonder they refuse to put forward solutions that would actually tackle the inequity that exists in our country. On the other side of the House, while the Liberals talk about climate action and affordability, they will not take the action needed to take on these big corporations. They refuse to address the climate emergency with the urgency and scale that is required. To be honest, if we have an option between climate denial and climate delay, the result is the same. It is climate inaction. People will continue to struggle. What people in Canada see more and more is that the climate crisis is a pocketbook issue. When crops fail, when there are multi-year droughts, when wildfires impact communities, the cost of groceries goes up. When we have oil and gas companies, and rich CEOs at the head of grocery store chains making record profits, and everyday Canadians struggling with the cost of living and with the impacts of the climate crisis, one would think we would have a government that would take action. There are solutions. We could implement a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies and could put that money into retrofitting people's homes, into building public transit, into the climate solutions we know would make a difference and into renewable energy. Instead, we have a government that has invested $35 billion into the Trans Mountain pipeline. We know that the oil sands have been ramping up production in anticipation of the Trans Mountain pipeline opening. Imagine, in a climate crisis, ramping up oil and gas production so that they could ship raw bitumen to the coast, threatening our coastal communities, the ecosystems and the very livelihood of coastal communities and threatening indigenous communities. It is so disheartening. It makes Canadians cynical when a government declares a climate emergency, and the very next day, it approves the Trans Mountain pipeline. It makes people cynical when the Prime Minister gets up and says that he believes in climate change and the climate crisis but then puts forward an oil and gas cap that is so watered down that it does not even meet their own weak climate targets. It does not even meet our Paris Agreement. This is not climate leadership. Canadians should not have to choose between bad and worse or between deny and delay. Let us implement a windfall tax on big oil and gas. Let us make sure that all low- and middle-income Canadians have access to heat pumps. Let us make sure that we are investing in our public transit system, in reducing our emissions and in ensuring that we invest in renewable energy. There are billions of dollars that the Liberal government continues to hand out to wealthy oil and gas CEOs in the form of fossil fuel subsidies that could be going into climate solutions. However, we will not hear either of those parties talking about moving the billions of dollars that they hand out to big and oil gas through carbon capture and storage or though the tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. We will not hear them talking about moving that money into supporting communities impacted by the climate crisis. We could fund a youth climate corps and could employ young people in the industries, in the jobs of the future, in responding to climate disasters, in making our communities more climate resilient and in bringing down our greenhouse gas emissions, in retrofitting our homes and in changing over our infrastructure to green infrastructure to ensure that we build an economy and a country that are climate safe and that is climate resilient. Every day I hear from Canadians who are worried about their future, and they are also worried about right now. Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. They are struggling, seeing the impacts of the climate crisis. They want a government that would take on the culprits, the people who are fuelling this crisis and the people who are gouging Canadians. It is time we had a government that looks out for everyday Canadians, not just the people at the very top, not just those CEOs who are ripping people off. It is time that we take care of Canadians who are seeing their costs go up, who are seeing their communities, sometimes, devastated by extreme flooding, by continued drought and by wildfires. Wildfire season is starting in February. We now know that Canada has the worst air pollution in North America. Last year, we had the best in North America. Now, because of wildfires, the top 13 worst polluted cities in North America are here in Canada. I want to finish by saying that Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve a government, and every party, that is fighting the climate crisis like we want to win.

1318 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mar/21/24 12:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all day, and indeed every day for months now, the Conservatives have been blaming the carbon tax for everything. If the culture sector is in trouble, it is because of the carbon tax. If people ask for MAID, it is because of the carbon tax. If people are lining up at food banks, it is because of the carbon tax. It reminds me of Plume Latraverse, who sang “it's El Niño's fault again”. Simply replace the words “El Niño” with “the carbon tax” and, voila, it is the Conservative platform. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the food bank issue. What we are hearing in Quebec is that the cost of food is higher primarily because of climate change. That is what people are telling us. Farmers are struggling because of drought or excessive rainfall. I would like to hear my colleague's comments about the cost of food going up because of climate change and the fact that the Conservatives are still denying the existence of climate change.

187 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/21/24 12:01:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has it exactly right. The climate crisis is impacting food costs. We know that there are multi-year droughts in British Columbia and in Alberta and that crops are being impacted. Just this week, the Province of British Columbia created a water infrastructure fund with $80 million to support farmers because they know what is coming. We have seen the impacts of this multi-year drought on farmers and on our crops. It is felt by consumers at the grocery store, and costs are rising. The experts have communicated this very well. It is not the carbon tax that is making groceries so expensive; it is the climate crisis, and it is also corporate greed. Rich CEOs, the Galen Westons of the world, are making record profits, and they are gouging Canadians. We need a government that will take this on.

146 words