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?

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2509 to 2516, 2518 to 2522, 2524 and 2525 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

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, 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.

It being 7:50 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 9, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the amendment. If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 28, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful and an honour to rise in this most honourable House to speak on various pieces of legislation. I am honoured to stand in the House tonight, on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples, to emphasize the importance of Bill C-49 and the offshore wind industry. The global industry is rapidly expanding, and it is crucial that the government seize the opportunity it presents to Canada, including in the provinces of Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Last fall, the executive director of the International Energy Agency said that “of all the power plants built in the world, more than 80% is renewable electricity. And this is not coming only from Europe, it is coming from China, India, Latin America, United States. It is a big move. So it is feasible to have a tripling of renewable capacity in the next seven years.” Investors around the world are racing to develop clean energy sources, including in the offshore wind industry. This represents a $1-trillion economic opportunity globally. That brings us to Bill C-49. With this legislation, Canada has a chance to demonstrate to domestic and international investors that we are completely committed to the growth of the low-carbon economy, and to ensure it is Canadian workers who can seize this opportunity. When putting together this bill, the government worked closely with its provincial partners in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, who fully support Bill C-49. In collaboration with the provinces and their respective premiers, the government worked collaboratively with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and found consensus and moved forward with Bill C-49. Andrew Furey, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is on record talking about his support for this particular piece of legislation, said, “The possibilities for renewable energy are endless in our province, and I look forward to this significant step forward in achieving our shared goals and diversifying the economy.” Nova Scotia's Progressive Conservative government has also vocally supported this legislation, calling it necessary. It is therefore shocking that the federal regressive Conservatives are holding back this vital piece of legislation that would benefit Nova Scotian communities, and that includes benefiting indigenous communities. Attending a committee hearing on this legislation, Chief Terry Paul of the Membertou Development Corporation of Nova Scotia stated, “Traditionally, indigenous Canadians were not invited to participate in major industry projects. I am proud to say that is changing. When we all work together, great things happen. We truly believe that an offshore wind industry can coexist with other industries in a sustainable manner.” Outside of our provincial partners, this legislation was also influenced by meaningful engagements that were carried out with many stakeholders who contribute to Canada's success every day, such as fishers, the energy industry and environmental groups. We will continue this engagement and seek feedback as we work toward the implementation of the legislation. During the committee process, we worked across the aisle and strengthened the legislation in consultation with both provincial governments that need to pass identical, mirror legislation. I would like to speak briefly to those amendments right now. The amendments strengthen this legislation. The amendments enable specific clauses related to the Impact Assessment Act in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's October 2023 decision. The amendments also reaffirm federal and provincial governments' joint commitments to considering the impacts of offshore energy projects on fisheries. I can assure members that, unlike the official opposition party, the Conservatives, who mismanaged the offshore and tried to rip up major investments, this Liberal government has great respect for the fishing industry and it is our intention to continue to support this sector as Canada's renewable energy industries continue to grow. More specifically, the fishing industry-related amendments would add a new paragraph to the two Atlantic accord implementation acts, reaffirming the need to consider the effects on fishing activities during the land tenure process. These amendments recognize the potential impacts that offshore renewable energy projects could have on fishing, and we take this very seriously. Lastly, on the amendments, the government made a few administrative adjustments, in consultation with our provincial partners, which would improve general consistency and clarify agreements with regard to boundaries. The amendments made at committee stage have the full support of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is time for us to move forward with this legislation and unlock the potential of the Canadian offshore wind energy industry. The longer that Parliament waits to designate a new regulatory body for permitting offshore wind, the more opportunities Canadian workers will miss out on. Major offshore wind projects are already being developed in the North Sea and on the American east coast, attracting significant investment. Countries like the U.S., Taiwan and several European nations, including Poland, are making significant progress in the offshore wind industry. France recently increased its goals for deploying offshore wind farms, while Ireland has published its national plan for offshore renewable energy. The global scenario is evolving rapidly, and Canada cannot afford to wait. Costs are coming down. The price of electricity generated by offshore wind has dropped significantly. The cost curve, as we say in economics, is broken, making it more affordable. Countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have all expressed interest in buying clean energy, including hydrogen, from Canada. Germany and the Netherlands have put their interest in writing, including through the Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance, an exciting alliance. Canadian businesses are more than ready to get involved when Canada is ready to launch this industry. They are already investing in offshore wind projects abroad and are eager to participate in the industry domestically. One Canadian company, Northland Power, is currently building offshore wind off Poland. To be clear, this bill is about establishing the legislative and regulatory framework so that an offshore wind industry can be developed in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the catalyst. Central to this bill is the establishment of regulatory bodies for this industry using boards that are already in place to oversee oil and gas activities in the Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore areas. They have both indicated they are ready to change their name and enact a broadened mandate. They are more than ready to get the job done, as both have decades of experience in offshore energy regulation to ensure all legal and regulatory criteria are met. Other allied nations such as the U.K., Denmark, Norway and the U.S. have gone before us in this type of strategy and have incorporated offshore wind into the authorities held by existing offshore petroleum bodies. Unfortunately, the climate deniers in the Conservative caucus are willfully ignoring the opportunity for communities across Atlantic Canada. Their tactics are aimed at delaying the passage of this bill, which means risking a greater portion of the trillion-dollar industry that is at stake. As the government strives for a future that is focused on generating and using increased amounts of renewable energy so that we can stand up to climate change and create thousands of jobs, there is no reason to turn down Bill C-49. The fact is that the only roadblock to unlocking massive new economic opportunity for Atlantic Canadians is the Conservative Party of Canada. Just like its ideological opposition to EV manufacturing in Ontario, solar development in Alberta or even investments in natural disaster response, it is clear that the Conservatives will always vote against any measure that is related to fighting climate change, which is a shame, even when it has a clear and significant economic benefit. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader would rather sit back and watch the planet burn while investment and opportunities pass us by. It is baffling and, yes, shameful, but not surprising. On this side of the aisle, we are rolling our sleeves up and getting to work. It is time to pass this bill so we can get to building the Canada we know exists. It is out there.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for what is probably his best-read speech ever written by the PMO to date. He quoted the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey. I take this bill a bit to heart because I lived in Newfoundland for several years. I quite love the province and miss it very much. He quoted the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey, but here is a quote I would read in return. Premier Furey said, “I have asked the Prime Minister to convene a meeting to discuss alternatives to the carbon tax”. When will that meeting be?