SoVote

Jun/7/22 11:02:32 a.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Jun/7/22 11:02:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on behalf of the finance team, but I am always happy to talk about our fabulous tourism sector. Just this morning, I was with the Frontier Duty Free Association. I understand it will be meeting with the member shortly. This afternoon, I have a fabulous round table with British Columbian stakeholders in the tourism industry. What is unfortunate is that the Conservative Party voted against Bill C-2, which provided support directly to the tourism industry. Last week, I made a number of announcements to tourism operators for funding. In some cases, non-refundable funding is going straight into the pockets of our small businesses in the tourism sector and supporting them through this difficult time. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

126 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 11:03:15 a.m.
Watch

Order. We can wait until everyone comes to order. While I am standing here waiting, I will comment that the quicker we ask questions, the more people can participate in the debate we are having this morning. I can start cutting people off. I really do not like doing that because I want people to get their comments, thoughts and questions out, but if members get long-winded, I might have to adopt a new way of doing this and cut them off when they hit a minute. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

96 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/7/22 11:03:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. It is quite disappointing to see the Conservative Party move an omnibus motion that combines so many issues. That said, the Conservatives are acknowledging some basic points, such as the situation for low-income earners who are struggling right now because of high inflation. I am not getting the impression that the government is doing much about that. Is my colleague prepared to consider a surtax on oil companies making record profits, as well as a surtax on companies making over $1 billion in profits? With this money, we could help the poorest people cope with the cost of gasoline and groceries. We could immediately stop cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. It is hard to believe that those kinds of cuts are even being made right now. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts.

152 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Jun/7/22 11:04:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that question. We, too, believe that everyone must pay their fair share. That is why we brought in a tax on banks, which made huge profits during the pandemic. We also proposed a luxury tax on expensive boats and aircraft because we understand how important it is to continue to support vulnerable Canadians. In our budget, we are proposing one-time payments for Canadians who are struggling to find affordable housing. We are proposing measures to help our seniors and to support Canadian families. I think we completely agree on the principle. I also appreciate the Bloc's suggestion to tax oil companies. We will also look into that.

114 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/7/22 11:05:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate some of the burns on the Conservatives in the member's speech, but ultimately, this back-and-forth is not necessarily helping Canadians. We have to put forward real solutions. We have to bring forward not only long-lasting ideas that hit the inflation spikes now, but the long-lasting reforms that are required. One thing the New Democrats have brought forward is tightening the regulation of the oil and gas sector. We have seen a lot of price gouging over the years. The New Democrats have asked for the establishment of a petroleum monitoring agency and an oil and gas ombudsmen to ensure that Canadians are getting fairer prices at the pumps. Could the member support that NDP initiative?

125 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Jun/7/22 11:06:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have only a short time. I always appreciate concrete suggestions from opposition members. As I mentioned in my speech, it has been disappointing to hear some of the proposals put forward, including the ones in today's motion, which do not actually address the affordability crisis in this country. I am happy to work with the member opposite on her proposal.

66 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 11:07:09 a.m.
Watch

That is all the time we have again this time. I know there are a number of members on Zoom who have tried to get in and ask questions but have been unable to do so up to this point. Again, let us keep comments and questions as concise as we possibly can. We are continuing debate.

57 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 11:07:27 a.m.
Watch

Good morning to all my hon. colleagues here in the House. It is always a pleasure to rise in this honourable place and speak to Canadians and the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge on the issues that matter most to them. Today we are speaking to the opposition day motion put forward by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, a very good friend of mine, with regard to a matter that is very important to Canadians in terms of where we are in the world today and the pressures that Canadians are facing at home and that my family faces. I am raising three daughters. We know that the expenses Canadian families are facing are elevated and we need to be cognizant of that. Our government is cognizant of that. Before I begin my formal remarks, tomorrow my oldest daughter is turning 11, so I am selfishly going to take the time to wish Eliana a very happy birthday. I hope to see her tomorrow evening. If that happens, great, but we will celebrate nonetheless tomorrow and in the days to come. I am blessed. God has blessed me with three beautiful daughters. They are the love of our life for my wife and me, and the time I have with them when I am back home is always very special. I try to be as present as possible. Happy birthday to Eliana. We do know that in this time and in today's world, we are facing very elevated commodity prices, energy prices and food prices as a result of a number of factors that are unfortunately beyond our control, including the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Russia and supply chain bottlenecks due to COVID-19 that are still being sorted out. We can look at the price of a container, for example. In my riding a container used to cost about $3,000 to go FOB from Europe to the port of Halifax, and the same container today costs about $12,000 to $15,000 to bring in products. That is just one data point, and there are many others. One thing that is sort of within our control is how we fight climate change. As an economist, I know carbon pricing is a very effective tool in fighting climate change. We know that is what the international experts are saying. We know the world needs more of Canada's energy, both renewable and non-renewable, but we know there is a transition happening. I have read the opposition day motion from my hon. colleague and friend from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, and the reference to suspending the pricing on carbon is something I disagree with. As an economist, I know we are doing the right thing. With that, climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and carbon pricing is the backbone of our climate plan. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, the cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activities in communities across Canada. We saw that in B.C. with the recent floods, which we had to react to, and we did. The latest science warns us that to avoid severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to hold the global average temperature to 1.5°. In April 2021, the Government of Canada responded by submitting a strengthened national emissions target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, in addition to its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. On March 29, the government released the 2030 emissions reduction plan, outlining how Canada would meet its 2030 target. The plan builds on a strong foundation, starting with Canada's first-ever national climate change plan in 2016 and then our strengthened plan, which was released in 2020. Carbon pricing is central to all of these plans because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike the policy of the Conservative Party, which in its platform released a bureaucratic, inefficient program that would not have the desired effect of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, our policy of carbon pricing continues to be the most efficient market-based pricing mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coast to coast to coast in Canada. I hope it is emulated throughout the world, as different mechanisms have been. We can look to Europe, of course. We have heard from stakeholders across the country that consistency and predictability are key to unlocking investments in this low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce emissions. They need clear incentives and supports to put those technologies into practice. Carbon pricing creates those incentives without dictating any particular approach. It lets businesses decide how to best cut their emissions. At the same time, Canadians are facing an affordability challenge, especially the most vulnerable Canadians. The federal approach to carbon pricing is designed to maintain the consistency demanded by industry and investors while prioritizing affordability for Canadians. We know it is not enough to create a cleaner economy; we have to make sure that Canadians can afford it. It is true that pricing carbon pollution will modestly increase fuel costs by about 2¢ per litre of gasoline in 2022, and we know every little bit counts when gasoline prices are hitting north of $2 a litre. We see it, but carbon pricing has never been about raising revenues; in fact, our plan allows most households to end up with more money in their pocket than what they have paid in approximately eight out of 10 households. Wherever federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families actually get more back through climate action incentive rebates than they paid, meaning this system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families. For example, the average cost impact of carbon pricing per household in Alberta is expected to be about $700 in 2022, but this is less than the average climate action incentive payment of about $1,040. In Ontario, the average household cost is estimated to be about $580, but households will receive back, on average, about $7l0. These estimates take into account direct costs like paying more for fuel and also indirect costs like paying a bit more for goods and services. Families in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10%. Households can use these funds in any way they want. They can use them to absorb the extra 2¢ per litre of gasoline if they choose. Any households that take action to reduce their energy use would come out even further ahead. Zero-emission vehicles are an option, with federal purchase incentives helping reduce the costs. The federal government is also supporting home energy retrofits under the Canada greener homes grant to reduce energy use at home, save money, and yes, cut pollution by reducing greenhouse emissions. The Government of Canada has also committed to return proceeds collected from the federal output-based pricing system, the OBPS, to the jurisdictions of origin. Provinces and territories that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in the other backstop jurisdictions will be returned through the OBPS proceeds fund, which is aimed at supporting clean industrial technologies and clean electricity projects. Climate change is a serious challenge, and it requires serious but reasonable leadership. This is an opportunity that Canadian industry, businesses and workers are taking hold of and leading globally. It is a very big opportunity. Canadians want to take advantage of the significant opportunities in the low-carbon economy. Analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates that transitioning to a low-carbon economy will deliver an economic gain of $26 trillion U.S. and generate 65 million new jobs globally. Just as we put a price on carbon pollution, we are also making historic investments in clean technology, innovation and green infrastructure to drive economic growth and yes, reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, including $9.1 billion in new investments to cut pollution and grow the economy as part of the 2030 emissions reductions plan. The “2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Canada's Next Steps for Clean Air and a Strong Economy” reflects submissions from over 30,000 Canadians, provinces and territories; indigenous partners; industry; civil society and the independent net-zero advisory body. This plan represents a whole-of-society approach with practical ways to achieve emission reductions across all of the economy. Canada is not alone in fighting climate change and pricing carbon pollution. The cost of inaction on climate change is enormous, and as a government and as a society, we must continue to ensure that we achieve our net-zero by 2050 goals and also make sure that the transition is affordable for Canadians. On the affordability front, through the last several years our government has put in place two major tax cuts for middle-class Canadians. Literally tens of millions of dollars have been returned to the pockets of Canadian families. The Canada child benefit is another measure, along with the Canada workers income benefit. The upcoming 10% increase in old age security for seniors will benefit over 3.3 million seniors. We understand that we need to assist Canadian families in getting ahead and we will continue to do that. I look forward to questions and comments.

1612 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 11:17:12 a.m.
Watch

We will go to questions and comments, and again my suggestion is that we try to keep them as concise as we possibly can. If we do run out of time, I will call someone whose hand has been up for a long time. The hon. member for Foothills.

49 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Jun/7/22 11:17:24 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I want to call into question my colleague's comments that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that this is not true, and I want to give the hon. member an example. Through Bill C-8, Canadian farmers are getting $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses as part of their carbon tax rebate. Some of them are paying more than $19,000 a month right now to run their machinery during seeding. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are paying in carbon tax. Would my colleague not agree that this is not revenue-neutral?

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/7/22 11:18:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Foothills' interventions in the House with regard to agriculture and farmers are very well respected. I have the utmost respect for farmers across Canada from coast to coast to coast. We need to make sure we have their backs at all times, particularly at a time when food security, food affordability and food security are of paramount concern. We will be there always to ensure we have the backs of farmers. I know the minister of agriculture is obviously fighting for farmers day in and day out.

95 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/7/22 11:18:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I pointed out to my Conservative colleagues that it was rather shameful to ask the government to lift the GST on gas, particularly since oil companies are making record profits right now. Big oil companies are the ones robbing the middle class of what little wealth it had managed to accumulate. I am wondering whether my colleague is aware that the government is supporting oil companies. That is another shameful fact. Think of the $2.6 billion the budget allocates to carbon capture strategies. Does my colleague agree that that is shameful, given what the greedy oil companies are up to?

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/7/22 11:19:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for his question. I support carbon capture strategies. I believe the carbon capture measure we put into our budget is one additional measure that we need to put into place to lower greenhouse gas emissions by working with industry. I will also add that the measures our government has brought into place since 2015 have been directly aimed at helping middle-class Canadians and middle-class Canadian families. We will continue to have their backs coming out of COVID-19 and working through this affordability situation that the whole world faces.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jun/7/22 11:20:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend happy birthday wishes to my colleague's daughter. We know that the Conservative motion, by cutting the GST and by eliminating the carbon tax on oil and gas, will actually just lead to an increased amount on our deficit. Also, it will do nothing to stop oil and gas companies from earning skyrocketing profits on the backs of everyday Canadians. We know that speculation is the biggest factor driving oil and gas prices at the moment. Does the member agree that tighter regulation of this sector, with the establishment of a petroleum monitoring agency and an oil and gas ombudsman—something we have been urging for several years—would be a good way to ensure Canadians are getting fair prices at the pump?

132 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/7/22 11:20:53 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a government and as a society, we always must monitor any anti-competitive practices that are being put in place or practised by whichever sector of the economy where they are in place. It was great to see a number of measures in budget 2022 that are aimed at strengthening the Competition Act and giving more teeth and more resources to that entity.

66 words

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

Jun/7/22 11:21:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, happy birthday to Eliana, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge's daughter. I feel that my question really is about all of our children's future, particularly someone at 11 years old. Despite the many programs that the Liberals have put forward on climate, they cumulatively are completely inadequate to ensure that we will avoid an unlivable world for our own children. The warnings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are clear that we must ensure that emissions begin to drop globally before 2025. I ask the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge if he would accept that approving Baie du Nord and continuing to build the Trans Mountain pipeline shows that there is an inadequate understanding that we are in a climate emergency.

128 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/7/22 11:22:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I also read a report. I think it was from the IAEA, if I have the acronym correct, and there is a chart in it showing the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas emissions over time. That chart is very startling. I agree with the hon. member that this is about our children's future. This is a global issue. Canada needs to lead on it, but we also need to know and also need to understand that this is a transition in place and that we need to ensure that energy security is there for citizens across the world, along with energy affordability. Also, we need to decarbonize. That has to be our priority.

118 words

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

Jun/7/22 11:23:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Mirabel. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved on the Conservative Party’s opposition day. This motion comprises many of the motions that have been moved by the Conservatives here in the past, most of which were defeated. They decided to take all these motions and lump them together, claiming that they were right and everyone else was wrong. I will begin by quoting Albert Einstein, hoping that my colleagues will not be offended that I am citing a scientist. He said that “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”. Let us be clear. Inflation is a real problem that concerns our constituents, but we need more than simplistic solutions to deal with long-standing patterns and complex phenomena. It is not enough to resort to libertarian monetary fads, such as cryptocurrency, to overcome rising prices caused by demand outstripping supply in the context of a labour shortage. Also, the word “cryptocurrency” is strangely absent from the motion, unless we should be expecting an amendment from the hon. member for Carleton. We will see. We are dealing with a real conflict in terms of the distribution of wealth and equity. I am not saying that this is the crux of the problem, but it is one of them. There appear to be three fundamental differences between Canadian and British Conservatives. First, British Conservatives defend sovereignty. As we know, it was the Conservatives who orchestrated Brexit. Second, they did not fire their leader. Third, they are concerned about their most disadvantaged citizens. Boris Johnson’s government plans to levy an exceptional 25% tax on gas and oil company profits in an effort to return the revenues to households experiencing the greatest difficulties. Canada’s Conservatives, on the other hand, are proposing that we suspend the goods and services tax on gasoline and diesel. That is pure demagoguery. Obviously, many Canadians get angry when they go to the pumps. Their anger is the most understandable and legitimate in the world and, for many of them, this simple solution may appear to be eminently sensible. They likely think that it would give them a bit of breathing room. The problem is that this is a false solution to a real problem. As long as oil companies control prices, they will obviously be able to increase them. Oil companies understand full well that, despite people’s anger, they have no other option right now than to go to the gas station and fill up their tank. If we were to suspend the tax, the oil companies would only increase their prices. It is that simple. That is the problem. Even if consumers were to pay less in the short term, which is not guaranteed, prices would soon increase. One could even say that this motion moved by the Conservatives is a gift for their oil company friends. An hon. member: Oh, come on! Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have unsettled my colleagues with this surprising revelation this morning. In this morning’s Journal de Montréal, Michel Girard, in an article entitled “Les pétrolières nous pompent des milliards”, or oil companies are siphoning billions out of our pockets—another article that will prove to be unsettling for some—reported on the expected and past profits of several major oil companies. Suncor Energy pocketed $11 billion in 2022, Imperial Oil made $6.2 billion in profits in 2021, and Valero Energy made $6.5 billion in profits last year. Internationally, Shell is expected to pocket more than $40 billion this year. Moreover, the energy sector subindex has risen by 43% since the beginning of the year, and that followed a 42% increase in 2021. I will now address the Quebeckers and Canadians who are listening to us. Here is the proof: Your inflation is their loot. It is that simple. We need a transition plan out of fossil fuels. We have been saying that for a long time, and we will continue to say it. We need to take action. Obviously, it will not happen overnight. We do not want to lay anyone off tomorrow morning. There are workers in the sector. The aim is not to lay them off, but it goes without saying that decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels means decreasing our dependence on fossil fuel price fluctuations. That is just logical. Today, as drivers are going broke, shareholders are celebrating. Sadly, there is nothing in the Conservatives’ motion about that. Still, the oil companies are not the only ones to be making record profits we could easily describe as obscene. Consider banks, with their astronomical senior executive salaries and profits in 2021. Combined, the National Bank, Laurentian Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, TD Bank, Scotiabank, CIBC and Desjardins Group earned $60.68 billion in profits. That is a 39% jump, or about $17 billion more, over the previous year, which was also a pandemic year. The Royal Bank of Canada was the biggest profit maker, raking in $16.05 billion, an increase of over 40%. It was followed by TD Bank, with $14.3 billion, an increase of 20%. Scotiabank pocketed $9.99 billion, an increase of 45%. The Bank of Montreal posted profits of $7.75 billion, an increase of over 52%. CIBC took in $6.45 billion, an increase of more than 68%. National Bank made $3.18 billion, an increase of more than 53%. Only Laurentian Bank did not do as well as in the previous year. Now let us look at salaries. The CEOs of these eight financial institutions took home $88.87 million, compared with $71.52 million in 2020. Not everyone is experiencing the crisis in the same way. According to Canadians for Tax Fairness, 111 publicly traded companies headquartered in Canada recorded profits over $100 million in the first nine months of the year. Thirty-four of these companies posted record profits during a crisis. Let me repeat that: during a crisis. The top earner was TC Energy, formerly TransCanada, whose Keystone project has been in the news for years. The company made $3.5 billion in profit on sales of $9.7 billion in the third quarter. Meanwhile, SMEs are going into debt. We need to levy a tax on profits exceeding $1 billion for banks, insurance companies, oil companies and big box stores. The tax revenue should be used to fund assistance programs, particularly for SMEs. That is how wealth is redistributed. That is also how the impact of the crisis is evenly distributed. The Biden administration in the United States has proposed a tax on the super-rich to finance its postpandemic investment plan. There would be a tax on unrealized capital gains, in other words, a tax on dormant income, which would apply to approximately 700 taxpayers and would raise hundreds of millions of dollars, guaranteeing that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share to finance the historic investments needed for a strong recovery. Last year in Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that a tax on excess profits earned by big firms in 2020, during the pandemic, would have generated $7.9 billion for the federal treasury. One promising solution that should be considered is a global minimum tax. In June 2021, the G7 finance ministers met in London and reached an astonishing landmark agreement to establish an international corporate tax rate of at least 15% and improve the distribution of tax revenues from multinationals. I only have six seconds left, but I still have so much to say. Before I take questions, I will conclude by thanking my colleagues for listening so carefully and by stating that the Bloc Québécois will not support these bogus solutions to real problems.

1362 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Jun/7/22 11:33:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I do not know if he really took the time to read the motion, but the solutions we are proposing are perhaps not long-term solutions as he suggests. I still feel it is important that we discuss them. However, in the short term, for all Canadians and those living in his riding, measures like temporarily suspending the GST on gas and diesel would benefit taxpayers in his riding. We understand that it is a short-term measure, but if we want to give our constituents a break, I feel it is important that we do it.

107 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 83