Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise here in the House of Commons. I particularly enjoy participating in opposition day debates. I am pleased to have the opportunity to interact with all my colleagues here, particularly the members of the Bloc Québécois, but also the many Conservative members who speak French.

Today's opposition motion was moved by my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague from Saint-Jean. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, who is a good parliamentarian. I appreciate the opportunity to debate the essence of the motion.

The motion is related to carbon pricing. I have a lot of experience with this issue. I am a government member who represents an Atlantic riding and, like many of my Atlantic colleagues, I had a different perspective on this issue. We understood the importance of changing the national policy, of changing the federal backstop for a couple of reasons.

I am going to talk today about something that happened in the last Parliament, and that shows the need for change. This story is also about the hypocrisy of the Conservatives when it comes to their position on the environment in general, but also when it comes to their position on carbon pricing. In some contexts, carbon pricing, particularly industrial carbon pricing, is a very conservative but small-c conservative policy. The Conservative Party platform that was presented during the election campaign included a plan to spend more public money, to spend more government money to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. It is not an effective plan, and I will talk about that later in my speech.

It is important to understand a few aspects of the federal carbon pricing plan. When former Prime Minister Trudeau and his government introduced their carbon pricing plan, the provinces and territories had the option of creating their own provincial plans. In fact, the goal was for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and all the other provinces and territories to have their own plans. It is absolutely necessary to acknowledge that Quebec, British Columbia and, I believe, the Northwest Territories developed their own plans. I think that Quebec's plan, with its cap‑and‑trade system, was a good plan. It was a good plan in terms of public policy, but also given the political context.

I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia. It is very difficult for my constituents to get around by public transit because the systems are non‑existent or are only available in the larger communities in my riding. This makes it absolutely necessary to have a car. The same is true for all rural communities across our country. It is also important to recognize that oil heating is particularly important in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces in general. I must say that it is also important in Quebec. I stressed the need to change policies in order to reflect each province's and territory's realities and to address the specific issues facing the provinces and territories.

I commend the Government of Quebec for introducing its own plan using the cap-and-trade system while focusing on the province's major GHG emitters. Polls have been conducted. According to various polling firms, a majority of Quebeckers, more than 50%, support this carbon pricing system. It was a resounding success.

Today, with the motion it moved, the aim of the Bloc Québécois is to win or justify some kind of federal expenditure specifically for the province, considering that the federal tax does not apply to Quebec, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories. David Eby's government did not raise this issue, and neither did the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

Had I accepted the Bloc Québécois's arguments, although I did not, I would have had a different problem with the text of the motion. Our government sent the payment directly to families and individuals and not to the government or a government program. The text of the motion says to give federal money to the Government of Quebec “without conditions”. It says without conditions, without an obligation to make the payment to Quebec families. I think that is problematic.

If the Bloc Québécois wants a program similar to the one that the federal government had just before April, it is imperative to do what the Government of Canada did and send payments to Canadian families living in the provinces where the federal backstop for carbon pricing applied. I think that the text of the motion is problematic in that respect.

I would like to raise two other points. In the current context, it is necessary to have a flexible policy. The government is going to develop a strategy for working with the Canadian industry. We have to be competitive.

I have a problem with the Conservatives' position on the environmental issue in Canada. Our plan has the support of our economists; it seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more effectively in Canada, especially for big corporations. We have to work with them. With all due respect to the Conservatives, it is very rare that they raise the issue of the environment. Nonetheless, in their election platform, they say that to change our climate goals, we need to spend more. There needs to be more government spending, more public resources. In my opinion, their plan is really chaotic. There needs to be a baseline for our businesses. There needs to be stability in the climate and competition policies, but also in the context of our international free trade.

I am now prepared to answer my colleagues' questions.

Kody Blois

$557,601.00