Madam Speaker, what the Liberals are about is increases, such as increases to the food banks, where in one month we saw two million visits, and now we have more than 1 million people going to the food banks. Why is that? It is because they are not only incompetent in their fiscal management, but also destroying our economy with their anti-resource drive. There has been a loss of jobs and a loss of investment happening across the nation.

Madam Speaker, on the question of cutting things, we are being told by our constituents that the thing they want cut is the number of Liberal government seats, but the reality of what people are telling us is that the costs are significant and the carbon tax is really brutal. As the government, in its budget, continues to want to increase it, I am hearing from my constituents about cutting the carbon tax. Is that something my colleague is hearing about with the challenges of a redistribution wealth scheme versus an environmental plan?

Madam Speaker, certainly the residents in my community, and across British Columbia and Canada, are saying they have had enough of this carbon tax, and they want to axe the tax. I cannot say how many people are phoning my office or meeting me and saying that they were voting for the NDP, or were voting for the Liberals, and they are not doing it again because of their poor management. The carbon tax is a case in point. If one looks at the facts and they realize that things are not working, they change their way of going. There is a carbon tax, and we are against that because it is not working. It is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. From what I understand, there has been consensus among the parties for unanimous consent for me to present the questions on the Order Paper. If we can get that affirmed, I will do that.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2517 and 2523.

With regard to the impact of the carbon tax on school boards, divisions, and educational institutions across Canada, since 2019: (a) how many school boards, divisions, and educational institutions have been consulted or met regarding the impact of the carbon tax on their financial situation, and what are the details of each such consultation, including (i) the date, (ii) who did the consultation, (iii) who was consulted, (iv) the location, (v) the type of consultation; (b) of the 10% of carbon tax revenues earmarked for funding programs aimed at reducing emissions, how much has been allocated to school boards, divisions, and educational institutions, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) year, (iii) recipient, (iv) project description; (c) what is the total amount of carbon price revenues collected from school boards, divisions, and educational institutions since 2019, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) year; (d) what is the government's estimate of the annual amount of carbon tax collected on gasoline or fuel purchased for school buses; (e) if the government does not have any estimate for (d), why has this not been studied; and (f) has the government conducted any analyses to determine the total financial net cost of the carbon tax on school boards, divisions, and educational institutions, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, (i) the name of the study, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) the date, (iv) the findings? With regard to the government's response to the April 1, 2024, “Axe the Tax” rallies across Canada: (a) did the Minister of Public Safety issue any directives or advice to the RCMP or other police agencies in relation to the rallies, and, if so, what are the details, including the directive or advice; and (b) did the RCMP issue any directives or advice to RCMP officers assigned to the rallies and, if so, for each instance, (i) who provided the directive or advice, (ii) what was the directive or advice, (iii) what location or locations was the directive or advice intended for?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

With regard to the Public Service Pension Plan, as of January 1, 2024: (a) what is the number of (i) public sector employees, (ii) retirees, (iii) former employees, in Group 1 of the Public Service Pension Plan; (b) what is the number of (i) public sector employees, (ii) retirees, (iii) former employees, in Group 2 of the Public Service Pension Plan; (c) what is the projected surplus in the Public Service Pension Plan; (d) what percentage of the plan is funded; and (e) what plans, if any, does the government have to distribute funds over the permissible surplus level? With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC): (a) what is the total amount of grants and contributions provided by ECCC to (i) not-for-profit organizations or charities, (ii) academia, (iii) international non-governmental organizations, broken down by year since 2019; and (b) what are the details of each grant or contribution in (a), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) purpose of the funding? With regard to the Deficit Reduction Action Plan, between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2016: how many jobs were cut or eliminated from the federal public service, broken down by (i) province and territory, (ii) department and agency, (iii) job type? With regard to federal investments in Canada’s telecommunications sector, since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Rogers Communications Inc., (ii) BCE Inc., (iii) Telus Mobility, broken down by company, year and type of funding? With regard to bonuses paid out at government departments or agencies in the 2023-24 fiscal year, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive (EX) level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the EX level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent? With regard to bonuses paid out at Crown corporations in the 2023-24 fiscal year, broken down by Crown corporation: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive (EX) level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the EX level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by month since January 2022: (a) how many requests for technical assistance have been received by (i) income tax service providers, (ii) the general public; and (b) of the requests in (a), what is the breakdown by the (i) type of tax filer, (ii) type of issue requiring assistance, (iii) forms, (iv) tax measures involved? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by McKinsey & Company since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Deloitte since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by PricewaterhouseCoopers since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by Accenture since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available online, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to reports, studies, assessments, and evaluations (hereinafter referred to as "deliverables") prepared for the government, including any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, by KPMG since December 1, 2020: what are the details for each deliverable, including the (i) date that the deliverable was finished, (ii) title, (iii) summary of recommendations, (iv) file number, (v) website where the deliverable is available on line, if applicable, (vi) value of the contract related to the deliverable? With regard to funding allocated to Pathways to Recovery's Safer Supply Ottawa Program through Health Canada's Substance Use and Addictions Program (SUAP), since 2016: (a) what specific measures, if any, were implemented to ensure that companies owned or operated by members of Pathway's board of directors did not financially benefit from the funding; (b) prior to receiving the SUAP grants, did Pathways disclose any conflicts of interest to the government, including whether or not any of their board of directors would profit from funding provided; (c) do any of the terms within the funding agreements include prohibitions on conflicts of interests and personal profit from the grants, and, if so, which agreements include such terms and what are their summary; (d) what are the details of all funding provided to Pathways, broken down by the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) project description; and (e) what specific safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure that substances provided by Pathways do not end up trafficked by drug dealers? With regard to the communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, since fiscal year 2005-06: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley Regional District, (ii) Nanaimo Regional District, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, (iv) Powell River Regional District, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by fiscal year, and total expenditure; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to the (i) Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (e) what is the infrastructure funding of Pacific Rim National Park, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (f) what is the funding of highways, including, but not limited to, (i) Highway 4, (ii) Highway 19, (iii) Highway 19a, (iv) Bamfield Road, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; and (g) what other infrastructure investments are provided through the funding of national parks, highways, the Building Canada Fund, Infrastructure Canada, the Gas Tax Fund, Small Crafts and Harbours, BC Ferries, etc., broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project? With regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s AgriCompetitiveness Program, broken down by year for each of the last ten fiscal years: (a) which organizations applied for funding through the program; and (b) how much did each organization in (a) (i) request, (ii) receive, in funding?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time. I am glad to have the chance to rise to share more about why Greens cannot support this amendment, but we will continue to support Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, despite its imperfections. Let us be clear: The amendment is essentially saying not to move forward with Bill C-59 at all in its entirety and, instead, to just repeal the carbon tax under the guise that this would help people across the country deal with issues with respect to the unaffordability of day-to-day life. Well, we cannot support the amendment, because repealing the carbon tax will not do any good for the vast majority of Canadians who are having a difficult time with the cost of living. There is a reason for that. There is a lot of talk of food banks in this place, but has any parliamentarian taken a look at what food banks are actually calling for? For example, what was the Daily Bread Food Bank calling for in its pre-budget submission? It actually has three recommendations, and all three call for increasing and moving quickly to put in place the Canada disability benefit. This would provide support to people with disabilities, who are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. Forty per cent of people living in poverty are people with disabilities. Groups such as the Daily Bread Food Bank have been joining in solidarity with the disability community to call on the government to put in place a Canada disability benefit that would bring people with disabilities above the poverty line. There is no mention of that in the amendment, which would just get rid of everything else that is in the fall economic statement. Not only that, but repealing the carbon tax would mean removing the rebates that go with it, which leave lower-income Canadians in my community better off; it is true. The carbon tax went up two cents a litre last year, and rebates went up along with it. The pure profits of the oil and gas industry in the same period of time went up 18¢ a litre. There were no rebates for any Canadian on that gouging, and that is not just the total profits, it is only the increase. It went up from around 26¢ a litre to around 42¢ a litre or so. This gouging of Canadians is leading to the $38 billion a year in profits in 2022 alone for the five largest oil and gas companies operating in Canada. This is after share repurchases and dividends are all issued. It is why folks such as myself and others have been calling to put in place a windfall profit tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry, the way many other jurisdictions already have all around the world. In fact, the government put in place a windfall profit tax on another sector already. In the midst of the pandemic, banks and life insurance companies had an extra 15% tax on profits over a billion dollars. It has been done before in this country. We could do the same when it comes to the oil and gas industry, and if we did, we could use those dollars to invest in real solutions to help address the unaffordability of day-to-day life for Canadians who need this the most. For example, we could increase service and reduce fares for public transit across the country; we could make it cheaper and provide more incentives for Canadians who want to retrofit their homes. These are the kinds of measures that would actually help address affordability. Repealing the carbon tax will not do anything to help Canadians who are struggling with day-to-day life. On the subject of the fall economic statement itself, while it is imperfect, Greens have been supporting it; it includes many measures that will help folks in my community and others across the country. The first I would like to talk about is when it comes to making psychotherapy and counselling services more affordable. There was a long-held promise and commitment that was followed through on in Bill C-59 to remove GST and HST from those services. It is a small measure that would make it more affordable for Canadians across the country to access mental health services. I would expect all parliamentarians in this place to agree that we need to do more to make mental health services available. Admittedly, the government actually committed $4.5 billion in the last election campaign for mental health transfers. The Liberals have not followed through on that, but they did put in place this measure to remove GST and HST from psychotherapy services. It is an important, good measure that, as Greens, we want to see made available to Canadians as soon as possible. There are also really important tax credits that would help bring along support for renewable energy across the country. There are tax credits that would benefit companies in my community, such as VCT Group, which is designing and building the future of solar energy. In fact, in conversations I have had with VCT Group executives over the last year, they have shared with me directly how contracts that they would like to see move ahead are being held back because these tax credits are not yet in place; prospective customers of theirs do not have the business case to move ahead unless they see them in place. Even with the tax credits, the payback period for certain projects is still particularly long, but there are far more potential customers of theirs who would be open to moving ahead should we see Bill C-59 and the clean manufacturing tax credit included in it move ahead. This is one reason Greens have been so keen to finally get to the end of the day when it comes to getting Bill C-59 passed. Again, this is the fall economic statement. We are in the late spring months now and have yet to see it move through. We are keen to see measures like this moved ahead. In fact, it was at committee where Greens even tried to improve on this to have that tax credit. As it stands right now, these tax credits are only available if both the manufacturing happens in Canada and the equipment is exclusively used in Canada. As Greens, we attempted to amend the bill at committee to allow for solar-powered lawnmowers, for example. A company in my community called Swap Robotics manufactures those. However, they are used in Canada only half the year, and they are used in Florida half the year. Because they are used outside Canada half the year, companies such as Swap Robotics would not be eligible for that tax credit. As Greens, we would have liked to see that expanded further. We were not successful with that at committee. However, what is in the fall economic statement is still an important and good measure; we are still going to support it. I would like to close, though, with the one piece of Bill C-59 that we are most concerned about, and that is another fossil fuel subsidy. It is a massive tax credit for a false climate solution called “carbon capture and storage”. The tax credits in Bill C-59, which have been rolled out for the last three years, amount to $5.7 billion. All this could be redirected, for example, to actually funding the Canada disability benefit and to building public transit infrastructure; instead, it is being wasted on this false solution technology that, more often than not, emits more carbon than it captures around the world. In closing, I will read a quote from Environmental Defence back in 2021. These are the words of Julia Levin, warning the government not to create the tax credits it did create, including in Bill C-59. She said: Carbon capture is being used as a Trojan horse by oil and gas executives to continue, and even expand, fossil fuel production. It’s a dangerous distraction driven by the same polluters who created the climate emergency. The Government of Canada should not use any kind of financial support or tax incentive to prop up false climate solutions that only serve to delay the necessary transition off of fossil fuels. I could not agree more with Ms. Levin. Climate scientists around the world have been warning us to get our dollars focused on the most efficient use of funds. There is certainly not such as focus with this subsidy to carbon capture and storage. However, on balance, Bill C-59 has measures that we need to see move ahead, and Greens will be supporting it.

Madam Speaker, the member referenced at the end that there are many benefits within the legislation and that those benefits would help Canadians, yet we have seen the discussions and the debates through second reading, now third reading, and at committee stage. In third reading alone, we are actually debating an amendment to third reading of the bill. There is no reason we should not have been able to get the bill passed long ago; until the legislation passes, the delay is denying people the benefits and supports that would be there. Could the member provide his thoughts regarding the fact that we are actually debating an amendment to the legislation at third reading, which again is meant to postpone its ultimate passage, and it is the fall economic statement?

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary knows, the amendment in front of us is, of course, not a substantive amendment. It is one of the tactics that is available to parties in this place, in this case, to delay legislation. I would also point out that it is the governing side that has the legislative power and calendar to set the agenda of the House. Greens' view is that we would have liked to see the fall economic statement move along more quickly and earlier. We can empathize with the fact that there are various delay tactics being put in place to slow the legislation down. However, we would also encourage the governing side to ensure that, when they have the legislative calendar available to them, they do what they can to move ahead important pieces of legislation. This is of course one of them. It certainly is a bit odd that we are this late into the spring and still talking about the fall economic statement. Our interest would be for parties to come together, agree on legislation that could move ahead and ensure that this happens.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoy working with him. We often see each other in committee meetings. I thank him for his work. He said some different things, but I agree with him on the fact that carbon capture is not really a way to fight climate change. Canada has a bad track record, as members have mentioned today. One member referred to a study by Carbon Brief that shows that Canada has been the worst polluter in the world per capita since 1850. That is a big deal. The Liberals continue to make investments. According to an International Monetary Fund study, the government has directly and indirectly invested $38 billion U.S. in support to the oil industry. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Carbon capture is not effective. The government needs to stop investing in the oil industry. That is for certain. The carbon tax is one worthwhile measure. What are two or three other measures that a Green Party government would put in place to fight climate change?

Madam Speaker, first of all, we agree with the Bloc Québécois on the fact that the government needs to eliminate all oil subsidies, including those pertaining to carbon capture and storage. As a Green Party government, we would be much more ambitious. We would move more quickly and take this issue more seriously. We are in a climate crisis. That means that we need to make significant investments in public transportation. We need to electrify our grid across the country and we need to eliminate all oil subsidies.

Madam Speaker, I have to believe that my hon. colleague is sincere when he talks about false climate solutions. I mostly agree with him, but there is an issue I have to bring up. The Auditor General, through her office, has the commissioner of the environment. One of his most recent reports commented that about $7.4 billion of government money was spent on the net zero accelerator initiative with no oversight, no due diligence before the money was given out and no ability to track if any carbon emissions were reduced with this spending. If he is sincere about his belief in ending the false climate solutions, will he commit to voting against future initiatives such as this instead of voting for them, as he has in the past?

Madam Speaker, I can start by saying that I appreciate the member for Edmonton West's bringing up something we agree on, which is how poorly rolled out the net zero accelerator fund is. I raised that at committee. What is a qualitative GHG reduction? It does not make any sense at all. That $7 billion could have gone towards true climate solutions. It is disappointing that it has not.

Madam Speaker, because this bill is time allocated, I will use my time to dedicate my opposition to this hot mess of inflationary and ineffective spending to Kelly Pascoe, who was the subject of a Calgary Herald article four days ago with the headline, “'You just can’t afford to be a single parent anymore': Working mom struggles to afford necessities”. In the article, Kelly talks about how her rent has almost doubled and she cannot afford to pay for groceries anymore. Everybody here is talking in academic terms, but Kelly is living the reality of irresponsible deficit, hot mess, inflationary spending and we have to oppose this. Whenever the Prime Minister and the Liberals get up and talk about actual solutions to Kelly's problems, they talk in academic terms. They do not talk about getting food for her kids, the music lessons she cannot afford anymore or the fact she is trying to find a roommate to potentially live in a basement suite. This mess that people are actually considering voting for is making the lives of people like Kelly a million times worse. The fact the government has not done anything at all to address their out-of-control waste on things like the arrive scam app, the We Charity scandal and the billions on consultants, and it does not even know how much it is spending on consultants, means that Kelly has to pay for that. I want to say this. The Prime Minister said years ago that the government was taking on all of the spending so that Canadians did not have to. Now Kelly has pay for this. I think it is atrocious that my time has been curtailed by the Liberals and the NDP on this speech. However, I would say to Kelly that I see her, that everybody on this side of the House sees her and that we will stand up, oppose and do everything we can to ensure that people like her who work hard, and she works hard with her own small business cleaning houses, have that dream of affordability and are able to live a life free and full of prosperity once again. I have hope that we can get there, but this one is for Kelly and I will oppose this bill.