44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that two people from my riding are here in Ottawa. These two young people are just embarking on their political careers. Audrey-Anne and Annabelle have been learning a lot during their time in Ottawa. I hope they will enjoy the debate. I am very pleased to have them here in Ottawa with us. I would also like to thank my colleague from Calgary Midnapore for her excellent speech.
After nine years, this Prime Minister and his Bloc Québécois supporters are just not worth the cost of $500 billion in Bloc-endorsed inflationary spending that is forcing parents to skip meals to save their families.
Today's motion is about suspending the gas tax for the summer. While the Bloc Québécois leader and a number of the MPs on his team are campaigning to radically increase gas taxes, Quebeckers in the regions who do not have access to public transit are paying a hefty price. Talk about being completely out of touch with Quebec. I will say more about that later in my speech.
I have a few statistics about the impact that nine years of this Prime Minister's government has had on Quebeckers. This year, food banks are helping 872,000 people every month. That is a 30% increase over 2022 and 73% over 2019. In 2019, 500,000 people were helped by food banks every month. Now there are 872,000. Behind those statistics shared by the press are human beings, vulnerable people, families, children, single people who are experiencing food insecurity and do not know whether they will have enough to eat each day. More and more working families are seeking help because people just do not have the means to cope with all the increases imposed by nine years of this Liberal government.
I want to quote from an article entitled “Housing has become a privilege”:
Soon, there will be nowhere for us to go, those of us who do not make a lot of money and who live in vulnerable situations. Housing prices are so high!
Among them, there are people who will end up in the encampments that are popping up everywhere.
In another article entitled “Housing crisis and mental health: Quebec organizations call out for help”, a spokesperson for the Regroupement des comités logements et associations de locataires du Québec states the following:
We hear from tenants who intend to commit suicide. This is more than just despair. They do not see a way out, and they want it to be over. That is what it has come to.
I have one last article from the Journal de Montréal entitled “Proof of of the housing crisis, she will soon be forced to live in her van”. Here is a quote:
This is what's become of me. I feel ashamed. I'm mad at myself, but also at the government, which treats it like a political issue. It's not a political issue, it's a crisis!
Nine years of Liberal governance has led us to this crisis, and we need to find solutions. We need to take action to help Quebeckers and Canadians get through this. The Bloc Québécois is certainly not helping Quebeckers by supporting $500 billion in inflationary spending by this government.
What is $500 billion in inflationary spending? It is the government's budgetary appropriations. These appropriations represent the money we voted on in Parliament. What are they funding? They are funding the bureaucracy, the consultants, the agencies, and the contributions to corporations and lobbies. In short, it is the money being used to fuel the big federal monster from which the separatists want to separate. It is rather surprising. We would think that a separatist party would vote against this budget that helps fuel this big federal monster. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The leader of the Conservative Party raised a very important point in the House. He said that he found it fascinating that a so-called separatist party from Quebec literally never supported reducing the tax burden on Quebeckers. That party never supports tax cuts. One would think that a separatist party would never support forcing Quebeckers to send their money to Ottawa, but no. In their own words, Bloc members want to drastically increase taxes.
When we think about it, it is true. Today, the Bloc Québécois claims to vote in the interest of Quebeckers, but we see that it is not true. We see that it is just a slogan. What the Bloc Québécois is really saying is that it will always vote in the interest of its party and its little brother in Quebec City, the Parti Québécois. The Parti Québécois does not represent all Quebeckers.
If the Bloc Québécois really wanted to vote for all Quebeckers, it would not hesitate to vote for Bill C‑234 as it was written. It was designed to abolish the carbon tax imposed on farmers. As everyone knows, if we tax the people who make the food, the food will cost more. Who is going to pay for more expensive food? Everyone, obviously.
If the Bloc Québécois were truly the party for Quebeckers, and not the federal branch of the Parti Québécois, it would think about people in the regions. I am talking about people in Matane, Joliette, Thetford Mines, Mirabel, Saint-Hyacinthe, the people who need their vehicles to get around, to go to work, for recreation. Yes, these people need their vehicles to get around.
A study was published by Le Journal de Montréal in 2023. The article was entitled, “Cost of living: How much does it cost to live outside the big cities?” I would like to quote from it:
Living outside the major centres of Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay, Sept-Îles, Gatineau and Sherbrooke can get expensive pretty quickly. The further away you live, the higher the cost of living. A family of two adults and two children can survive on a livable income of $71,161 a year in Montreal, but it increases to $76,918 in Sept-Îles. In Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, in the Gaspé Peninsula, that number rises to $78,621.
Why? The answer is simple, “The big difference between the cost of living in town and in the regions is the need for a car. If you have a family, you have two cars.” A father of four in Cap-d'Espoir said, “They need gas and gas is more expensive than it is in Montreal. It all adds up, so yes, there are things that cost more.”
Like the Liberals, the Bloc wants people in the regions to pay more for getting around. They would like the carbon tax to be drastically increased. I have a pile of statements here from Bloc Québécois members calling for the tax to be drastically increased, who say that the tax is not high enough and that we should immediately triple it to make people pay for pollution. For people living in the regions, pollution is the fuel they put in their car to get around, to go to work, to take part in leisure activities.
Not wanting to budge from that sort of ideology has consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences are that Quebec families, workers in the regions are paying the price. I would like the Bloc Québécois to realize that. The Bloc Québécois members want to punish Quebeckers to appease their conscience by making them pay more for fuel. It is an essential commodity for those who live in the regions, who do not have access to structured public transit services like those in the big city.
I am eager to see whether the Bloc Québécois will support our motion today to suspend federal taxes on fuel. Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Quebeckers should keep their money in their pockets instead of sending it to Ottawa? If we were to ask that question to anyone in Quebec, they would say that that is surely not what the Bloc Québécois wants.
However, from what I have heard today from the representatives of the Bloc, it is apparently not that easy or straightforward. One would expect it to be a no-brainer for a party that wants to separate from the big federal machine. Unfortunately, I would be very surprised if the Bloc Québécois supported us, because, as I said earlier, they want to drastically increase gas taxes. To keep expanding the big federal Liberal machine, the Bloc Québécois will keep sending Quebeckers' money to Ottawa. Once again, I will quote the member from Carleton:
The Bloc Québécois supports high taxes, massive federal debt and a bloated bureaucracy that meddles in everything but is good at nothing. We should also remember that the Bloc Québécois supports a justice system that frees repeat offenders and bans hunting rifles. In fact, an independent Quebec with the leader of the Bloc Québécois as premier would be almost identical to the federal state led by the current Prime Minister.
When we look at the facts and at the action taken by the members of the Bloc Québécois in the House, we cannot help but agree with the words of the Leader of the Opposition. To really change things so that Quebeckers have more money in their pockets, members need to support this Conservative motion, which seeks to suspend the federal gas tax. I think that there is only one real option for Quebeckers who want more money in their pockets and that is the Conservative Party's common-sense plan.
1715 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:35:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party is trying to give the impression that the average Canadian will benefit by $670 because of this particular policy. That is just not true.
I would suggest that it would be lucky if 5% of Canada's population would get the maximum benefit of $670. Does the member have any evidence whatsoever to clearly show I am wrong in my estimation of 5% of the population, if that?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:36:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is one thing I am sure of. I hear the member for Winnipeg North trying to distract from the debate at hand, but there is one number I am sure of, which is that 100% of people who put gas in their vehicles want lower taxes. That is a fact. No one is happy paying tax when they are putting gas in their vehicle.
We are asking for common sense. Right now, people have less money in their pockets. We want to leave them with more by cutting gas taxes for the summer at least, so they can enjoy summer too.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:36:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for ascribing such power and importance to the Bloc Québécois. Indeed, we really are a bulwark against the Conservative Party. It seems to me that the Conservative members are doing something they do a lot: making up problems that do not exist and coming up with solutions that certainly do not work.
Here is an example. Right now, the government is returning all of the revenue from the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec. I have had to repeat this several times. Maybe one day the opposition members will get it. In the provinces where it does apply, people are reimbursed for this tax, which does not apply in Quebec. Voting for this measure to abolish the tax for three months works out to $3 billion, $3 billion that Quebeckers would have to pay.
I do not know why my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable does not talk about the debt he would be forcing Quebeckers to take on this summer. Instead of having money in their pockets, they will have to pay for Canada, which does not want to do the same thing Quebec is doing, that is, participating in the carbon market.
As I said, the Bloc Québécois serves as a bulwark. I would have liked to hear my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable comment on the fact that, two weeks ago, we were talking about women's right to control their own bodies. The House was full, but I did not see anyone applauding the parties opposite or over there. Ours, however—
293 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:38:23 p.m.
- Watch
I will give the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable the opportunity to answer the question.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:38:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, the carbon tax, federal carbon pricing, does not apply in Quebec, because Quebec has the carbon exchange. However, that does not matter. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Quebeckers are still not paying enough yet.
Here is what the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert had to say on the matter:
Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far.
I think the UN was recommending that the tax be set at $200 per tonne now. Based on what we are hearing, it will be about $170 per tonne in 2030.
That is three times the price we are paying in taxes right now. The Bloc Québécois is not saying it out loud, but what it wants is for Quebeckers to pay more at the pumps, period.
Can they vote in favour of our motion to give Quebeckers a break this summer, yes or no?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:39:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in Ontario, the Conservative government under Doug Ford scrapped the cap-and-trade system we had. It cost billions of dollars to get out of the agreement that had been made and that was functioning very strongly. Now we have a carbon tax, rather than that system. Ironically, cap and trade was developed more to tax businesses and the real polluters, versus what we are now stuck with.
What does my colleague think about Doug Ford's putting us in the situation where it cost us billions of dollars to get out of cap and trade, and now putting us in the current situation?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:40:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's government has done a lot of damage to this country over the past nine years. It has doubled the cost of housing. It has caused inflation to reach its highest level in 40 years. No one, not a single young family, can still dream of owning a home or property, because it is too expensive.
Without a doubt, the NDP has made its bed. It chose this Prime Minister's Liberal government.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:40:51 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, Mental Health and Addictions.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it will be my absolute pleasure to be sharing my time with the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.
As always, it is a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of residents of my riding of Davenport to today's opposition motion by the Conservatives. I am going to read the motion, just because, in my own imagination, I always think that of course there are people who might want to look at this at a future date and they are going to want to know what the opposition motion is about. The motion states:
That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day.
First of all, there is no NDP-Liberal government, so we should probably just state that up front. There is a supply and confidence agreement between the Liberal government and the NDP.
I would also say that I do not agree with the premise of this motion. It is not the carbon pricing that is stopping Canadians from affording a summer vacation. The only provinces that are actually subject to carbon pricing are those provinces that do not have a current plan in place to reduce their carbon emissions. For example, my home province of Ontario, and it was just mentioned by one of my NDP colleagues here, did have a carbon-pricing mechanism before the current provincial government was elected in 2016. It was a cap-and-trade system with Quebec and California. When the provincial Conservative government in Ontario got into office, it cancelled that system and, unfortunately, not only was there a cost to cancelling it, but the province actually lost, and I remember this very clearly, $3 billion in annual revenue. On top of that, the government did not replace it with another system to reduce carbon emissions.
It is known that climate change is happening. Every country in the world needs to do its part to reduce emissions, to meet its Paris Agreement targets and to move to a low-carbon future.
The Conservatives like to make bold and, sadly, unfounded assertions that carbon pricing is worsening food-security challenges in this country, but there is no evidence that this is happening. In fact, time and again, the data suggest that the impact of carbon pricing on inflation is the equivalent of a rounding error. We hear that time and time again in the finance committee. This fact is also supported by the Bank of Canada and many others. Carbon pricing has no real, discernible impact on any increases of food costs in this country. We have seen experts appear at the agriculture committee suggesting the same, saying that they can find no straight line between carbon pricing and food costs.
Therefore, what do we know? During a high inflationary period worldwide, compared to G7 countries, many that do not have carbon pricing, Canada has the second-lowest food inflation rate.
What else is the data telling us? It is telling us about the impacts of climate change on food costs. Let us take, for example, the impact on grapes or cherries, like those in Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Increased forest fires taint the crops, rendering the products of those farmers unsellable. Blueberry farms in Nova Scotia, like the one in the riding of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who unfortunately spoke against carbon pricing yesterday, are losing large amounts of crops to huge fluctuations in precipitation that lead to either drought conditions or extreme wet weather. Let us also talk about the impacts of flooding on animal agriculture, like what we saw during the atmospheric river flooding in the Lower Mainland of B.C. We saw cows up to their udders in flood water; we saw many barns destroyed; and, unfortunately and very sadly, we saw many animals perish.
We also have seen the climate impacts on invasive species on our crops. We have seen that climate change helps the spread of new pests that threaten both crops and animals. We are also seeing the climate change impacts on the warming of the oceans, and that this warming poses a serious threat to the billion-dollar east coast lobster fishery.
I could go on and on with a lot of examples, but these are the costs that we have to be very focused on. These are the real costs of climate change, and they are happening in real time, year after year.
Where is the leader of the party opposite to be found in actually addressing these issues with real solutions? He is nowhere. We all remember last year when, being the leader of the party opposite, he had to cancel the axe the tax rallies in Yukon and Okanagan Valley because of wildfires. Yet, he has absolutely nothing to say about climate change, nothing to say to farmers and the next generation of farmers about how the Canadian government will take their concerns seriously and support them to be more resilient in the face of a changing climate.
Actually, there is something else that members opposite are not being honest about. Taking away the price on pollution would also remove the Canada carbon rebate and hurt people with that key income support, which is helping them to put food on the table. The Canada carbon rebate benefits lower-income Canadians the most. These are Canadians who tend to suffer most from food insecurity.
Germaine Romberg in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is on a fixed income and depends on the Canada carbon rebate payments to make ends meet to pay for rent and for other necessities. The $300 she got every four months last year on top of her disability payments made a world of difference for her monthly bills. She is not alone; this story has played out with Canadians across the country.
A study published late last year in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, called “Canadian food inflation: International dynamics and local agency”, looked at the difference between the amount Canadians pay and the amount they get back in the Canada carbon rebate. The author concluded that:
Removing the tax may actually make some Canadians, particularly lower-income and rural Canadians, worse off than they are under the carbon tax...The impacts of the carbon tax on food prices are suggested to be small. If they are smaller than the difference between CAI payments and carbon tax paid, many Canadian households will suffer a net loss due to the repeal of the tax.
This is the same thing that the Government of Canada has been saying all along: Eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay.
There are tens of thousands of Canadians out there like Germaine in Saskatoon, who, if they lost their rebate payments, would have their ability to purchase food severely diminished. We know that Conservatives, sadly, would deprive people of these rebate payments if they ever got into power.
I am going to repeat something that one of my colleagues said this morning, because I really believe it is important to be repeated. It reads:
Carbon pricing continues to be the most efficient, simple and cost-effective way to meet our targets. It is a measure that encourages the whole population, every household and every business, to find ways to cut pollution, whether and however they would like. It sends a powerful message forward of confidence to businesses to invest in cleaner technologies to be more energy efficient in the future.
Carbon pricing does not raise the cost of living. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, as I mentioned earlier, it represents only a tiny fraction of inflation and increase in the price of groceries, which is less than half a percent. However, there is a 10% supplement for people living in rural and remote communities. We proposed increasing it to 20%, but the Conservatives, sadly, have been delaying Bill C-59 for months now. I am hoping that they will stop delaying this, but for provinces under the federal pricing system with a Canada carbon rebate, 80% of Canadian households receive a refund greater than what they pay. In fact, if carbon pricing were abolished today, not only would clean energy investment and job creation grind to a halt, but our low- and middle-income families would have less money in their pockets.
I am urging all members of this House to vote “no” to the opposition day motion, because, unfortunately, the Conservative opposition party has no plan to address climate change, and no plan to actually help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.
1473 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:51:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, but here we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and what does the government do? It had a successful program, the greener homes program, that employed many tradespeople and enabled people to reduce their energy needs and their carbon footprint. People were able to take autonomy in their own homes to come up with a cleaner energy future and be part of that story. It is still out of reach for many Canadians, as many Canadians need heat pumps and cannot access them, but this government killed that program, which was hugely successful.
Is my colleague, whom I have worked with many times on climate-related issues, going to be working with her government to bring that program back and actually expand it so that all Canadians can access it and help tackle this climate crisis?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:52:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passion.
I agree with him. It was a very popular program. The residents in my riding of Davenport loved that program as well. He will recall that when we introduced the program, it was not that easy to apply to. We reintroduced it and, all of a sudden, an overabundance of Canadians applied.
My understanding is that there continues to be a lot of support for that program and we are hoping to reintroduce that program in the near future.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:52:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to commiserate with the member for Davenport in having her office vandalized in such a gruesome manner that now the Toronto Police Services Hate Crime Unit is investigating it as a hate crime. As one member of Parliament to another, we do not enjoy such things being done to our offices and the risks that come to our office staff.
A previous member of the Liberal Party mentioned William Nordhaus, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. In his research that has been used by IPCC, and I have read the IPCC report, he specifically points out that if we have carbon taxes, we should do nothing else because they are very damaging to the economy. Of course, the government's policy has been to try to do all of it, which has been damaging to the economy. Even William Nordhaus's research demonstrates that in his calculations.
I wonder if the member would agree with William Nordhaus that we should only have carbon taxes, which is the economist's preferred path. Our preference on this side is to go with homeowners and families in our ridings who are just looking for a break from one long weekend to the next so this summer they can have a staycation and not to pay any of the excise taxes, gas taxes and GST on any of their fuels.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:54:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think I need the rest of my time to answer the three different things that the member talked about, but first I want to thank him for his kind words. The vandalism of my office a couple of days ago is something that happens to members of all political parties. We all have to make sure that we discourage that and that we encourage good protests, healthy debate and public discourse.
What I would say to the member opposite is that carbon pricing works. We have introduced a climate action plan and framework with over 100 measures that we have to implement in order to meet our Paris targets and our target of net zero by 2050. It is believed that the carbon pricing is only going to—
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:55:09 p.m.
- Watch
I understand the hon. member would like to give a fulsome answer, but there is another question. I would ask her to give a very brief answer.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:55:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it will help us achieve one-third of Canada's emission reductions by 2030. We have a number of other measures in place that will help us reach the rest of our targets.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:55:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are in a Parliament where certain political parties are actually competing to see who can do more to help the oil companies, which are making huge profits.
I would like to know how my colleague can live with the fact that her government, in the last two budgets, proposed six tax credits that could cost taxpayers a total of $83 billion. That money will be given to the oil companies, which we have been talking about all day, with some feeling so sorry for them because they are being taxed so much.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:56:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a question that many Davenport residents ask all the time. I will say, though, that I am very proud of our government. We have eliminated all efficient and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. I hope the member will be happy to know that.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:56:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Carleton on this opposition day.
Before I begin, I want to salute the courage of my colleague from Davenport, who spoke right before me and whose office was vandalized, as well as that of her staff who had to see the photos and work in such an environment. I want to give my support to my colleague as well.
We are meeting today to go over an opposition day motion. For Canadians who are watching, I always like to use this sort of thing as a teachable moment. When Canadians look at what the motion says, it sounds kind of interesting. It states, “That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day.”
First of all, we would like to know where the members opposite came up with that number. In order for Canadians to save that kind of money, they would actually need to use 3,293 litres of gas. Summer vacation normally starts once school lets up, so let us say it is July and August, which is literally two months' time between now and Labour Day. In two months, in order to save that kind of money, based on the Conservatives' math, Canadians would have to drive more than 37,000 kilometres. I do not know about you, but I will not be driving 37,000 kilometres in two months, and I do not think any Canadian is going to be driving 37,000 kilometres in two months. Therefore the premise of the motion is factually incorrect.
The motion also mentions the NDP-Liberal government. I have to say that there is no NDP-Liberal government, but we do have great colleagues across the way, and we are working together, which is what Canadians want us to do to help them and make things better for them. Therefore when I look at the motion and scratch its surface, we can see that it is virtually impossible. In my home province of Quebec, it would be even more than that, because there is not a price on pollution; there is a cap-and-trade program.
I think of the Canadian families who are struggling with the cost of living.
In the budget, we presented to Parliament measures to help Canadians when it comes to the cost of living. We are now offering modestly priced child care across Canada that is modelled after the program implemented in Quebec under Quebec's leadership.
We have introduced programs for the purchase of heat pumps to reduce Canadians' demand for fuel.
We provide rebates for Canadians who would like to change their form of heating and rebates for Canadians who would like to perhaps purchase a plug-in hybrid or an electric vehicle. We encourage Canadians to visit Canada, this wonderful place, but in order to do so, we cannot have a summer like last summer.
Last year, Canadians faced the worst wildfire season in our recorded history. Over 15 million hectares burned, which is seven times more than the annual average. An area twice the size of Portugal went up in smoke, along with hundreds of family homes.
We cannot afford to impose the high cost of climate inaction on Canadian youth. That is why we put a price on carbon pollution. As I mentioned, the provinces and territories are free to implement their own carbon pricing system. That is what Quebec, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories did.
The federal backstop is in place in the provinces and territories that did not do that. The system is designed to be fair and affordable. Eight in 10 families get more money than they pay thanks to the Canada carbon rebate.
The Canadian carbon rebate ensures that we fight climate change. In my home province, the citizens of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne are absolutely committed to fighting climate change, and they want us to do so in the most cost-effective way, delivering hundreds of dollars every three months to Canadians residing in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies. Importantly, lower- and middle-income families benefit the most.
Last summer we witnessed horrific scenes coming out of British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Over 200,000 Canadians were evacuated and eight firefighters were killed fighting wildfires. On top of that, we all saw the images. We were here in this very place, with the smoke that we could literally taste when we were walking outside. The smoke from the wildfires last year blanketed the entire east coast of the United States. People with asthma and other respiratory illnesses suffered greatly. The cost of inaction on fighting climate change is too large to bear. We must continue in every way possible to fight climate change.
For the families who are planning their summer vacation, of course we want them to have the ability to take a vacation. That is why the Canada child benefit is indexed. That is why we put forward measures that will assist Canadians and their families to be able to take a much-needed vacation. We encourage Canadians to take the necessary downtime after working hard, and we are making sure that young Canadians too can continue to save up for their first home. We are putting measures forward in the budget to make sure that Canadians can reach their full potential.
I am at a loss as to where the proposed number came from. I do not understand how the Conservatives can say that in two months, Canadians can drive 37,000 kilometres or that they would even want to. I just cannot support the motion. I welcome the feedback from the Conservatives on how they got to the number of $670, because I cannot figure out how they did, and I do not think they have been able to explain to us yet today in the debate how they got to that number.
Let us be clear. I think we are all united here in terms of wanting every Canadian to have an opportunity to have some time off this summer. I think every Canadian wants that, and that is why we are making sure that the Canadian carbon rebate puts more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians where it applies in their jurisdiction.
With that, I do want to say to Canadians that I hope they have a great summer holiday this year.
1129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 5:05:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way wants to know where we get numbers. I want to quote some numbers I have taken right from the public accounts. I believe my colleague across the way actually served on public accounts with me for a short bit.
The government has given $277 million in direct subsidies right to Tesla over the last year and a half. That is over a quarter of a billion dollars. Elon Musk is worth $268 billion Canadian. He owns 20% of Tesla, so the government has paid Elon Musk, the world's richest person, $55 million directly, and this is right from the public accounts.
Why is the member opposite happy to subsidize Elon Musk but will not give Canadian taxpayers 35¢ a litre off their gas for their summer driving?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
