SoVote

Dec/8/22 4:28:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to hear my colleague tell it, it is like nothing happened in the past year. As I see it, what we really need to talk about is this government's mismanagement of many of the programs that were created. I do not dispute that the CERB was very important initially, but it should have been adjusted. We have said so repeatedly during question period and over the past year. Incorrect payments were made. What really matters right now is not tripling this tax as of 2023, because it will jeopardize Canadians' ability to feed themselves.

97 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Dec/8/22 4:28:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it seems as though the Conservative Party is criticizing the carbon tax to score political points. I do not understand it, because we know that the carbon tax is more of a problem for companies. We are talking about SMEs that are being penalized, while major emitters are benefiting from carbon pricing relief programs designed to promote an increased production of hydrocarbons. We are well aware that, at the last Conservative convention, there was a resolution to recognize the existence of climate change. They addressed that issue and the resolution was rejected by 54% of Conservative Party members. How does my colleague explain the climate change denial and the constant attacks on the carbon tax?

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Dec/8/22 4:29:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, we are not off to a good start because, just yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Agriculture was not even able to differentiate between family businesses and individuals when asked a question by one of my colleagues. We are being told that people benefit from a carbon tax rebate that is equivalent to what they paid, but that is only the case for individuals, not businesses like family farms. Even the minister did not know that, but we must not forget that 95% of farms in Canada are family farms, which are not eligible for the same tax rebate. The government is penalizing our agricultural industry and our food supply at the same time.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Dec/8/22 4:30:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the carbon tax not being paid in Quebec, but I know his producers buy fertilizer and fuel and transport their goods to other parts of the country. We heard the other day at committee that 44% of produce growers are selling their goods at a loss. The government always talks about sustainability. With $150,000 carbon tax bills on Canadian farmers, is that sustainable for Canadian agriculture?

73 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Dec/8/22 4:31:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that is really unsustainable for agricultural businesses. There will be significant losses and business closures if we do not put a stop to this carbon tax on agriculture. I want to reiterate that this morning's motion does not seek to suspend the carbon tax on everything, but only on the inputs needed to produce food and to support our ability to feed the planet, because Canada is a major food exporter.

76 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/8/22 4:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Order. 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 South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Climate Change; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Maritime Transportation.

50 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/8/22 4:32:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants. Seven times since this Parliament was formed, Conservatives have brought in motions regarding pricing pollution like the one we have here today: March 23, 2022; April 4, 2022; June 7, 2022; September 28, 2022; October 3, 2022; October 4, 2022; and today. Seven times they have brought this in. Six times it has been defeated. In all likelihood it will again be defeated today, and they are absolutely relentless about this issue. To make it even more confusing, they ran on this in the last election. On election day, September 20, 2021, when the Conservatives had their constituents go to the polls to vote for them, their constituents voted thinking that they agreed with pricing pollution. This is from their election platform, which says, “Conservatives will work with the provinces to implement an innovative, national, Personal Low Carbon Savings Account. This will put a price on carbon”. The plan goes on to compare it to the current plan that the government has, saying, “our plan is just as effective in emission reduction”. This is what they ran on, and since the election, they have brought forward seven motions against pricing pollution.

210 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/8/22 4:34:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is very important that my hon. colleague be accurate. If he is saying the Conservatives thought they could be just as efficient as the Liberals on emissions, would that not be a sign that they were putting forward a failed plan?

53 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/8/22 4:34:22 p.m.
Watch

This is a point of debate and not a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

21 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/8/22 4:34:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have asked the question repeatedly of Conservatives as to why. It is not a trick question. I just want an answer. I want to wrap my head around what is going on. However, time after time, whether it was the member for Beauce or the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes yesterday or countless Conservatives whom I have asked, I continually met with not just dancing around the issue, but complete and utter avoidance of addressing the issue. It is as though they are so incredibly ashamed of what they ran on in the last election that they will not even take the time to explain to Canadians why they have changed their minds. An hon. member: They are embarrassed.

128 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/8/22 4:36:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps they are embarrassed. However, here is the best part about it. I will read what members of the Conservative Party said when they released this plan prior to the last election. The member for Durham, as we know, brought forward the plan, because he was the leader at the time. He said, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” The member for Calgary Centre, who I know has asked questions challenging this in the House today, said, “I think it's an evolution for parts of our party—but there's also many parts of our party that have been pushing forward for environmental solutions of all types.” This is a sitting member who is supportive of it, and this was what he said when he ran in the last election. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

153 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/8/22 4:36:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize. I was just concerned that the member was accusing the Conservatives of believing in evolution, and I do not think that is fair.

30 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/8/22 4:36:28 p.m.
Watch

There seem to be other members debating against each other. I would ask members to please hold off, because it is the hon. parliament secretary who has the floor, and there will be opportunities for questions and comments. On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

51 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/8/22 4:36:38 p.m.
Watch

Again, this is not a point of order. On another point of order, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

20 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Dec/8/22 4:36:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in response to the point of order, we just do not believe that the NDP evolved—

19 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/8/22 4:36:48 p.m.
Watch

I already indicated that these are points of debate and not points of order. I would say to members that if they want to have conversations with each other that they may want to step out into the lobby to do that. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

46 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/8/22 4:37:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think they might both be right. I am just trying to wrap my head around the position of the Conservatives. If the answer is that they had absolutely no faith in their previous leader and the decision he took, that is fine. They should just say it. If the issue is that Conservatives were upset when the member for Durham put it in their platform, I did not hear any of them voicing their concerns during the election. This platform was issued in May or June. They started talking about this well before the election, and I do not remember hearing the member for Calgary Centre say he was against it. As a matter of fact, he said the exact opposite, as I just read out, and so did so many Conservatives. They just sat there and accepted it as being part of their plan. They went out, knocked on doors and tried to convince Canadians of their plan. Albeit, it was a different and, in my opinion, flawed way of doing it because they were basically saying that, instead of putting a price on pollution and giving back a rebate of the exact same amount to everybody, they would have liked to put a price on pollution, but it would go into a savings account, then using that savings account, people would have a catalogue from which they could determine how to use their points, just like Aeroplan. They would have been able to choose what they wanted with their points. They could have gotten a bicycle. They could have given carbon credits somewhere. They could have done this or that. I do not think it was a good plan, but at least it was a plan, and at least it was a plan that understood and respected how the market works. If we put a price on something, it will change the way people look at making their purchases. This is not rocket science. This is economics 101. If we make something more expensive, fewer people are going to want to buy it. It eventually changes the way people look at making their purchases, and they move in another direction. It is not the first time this has happened. We can look at purchasing cigarettes, for example. Every time they get a bit more expensive, people start to make the choice that maybe it is time for them to quit. This is not something that is brand new. Conservatives would want us to believe that this is something that is absolutely foreign, out there and incomprehensible. The party whose members tout themselves as the stewards of the economy and those who know how an economy works better than anybody else cannot even understand the basic fundamental principle that, if we put a price on something, it will make it less attractive for people to buy, but that is where we are. I find it very hypocritical and very rich that Conservatives come in here, time after time, bringing forward these motions, seven since the last election, to challenge something that they supposedly believed in. In the last election, they did believe in it, and they put it in their platform. The member for Regina—Lewvan, who looks like he is ready to ask me a question, even though my time is not up, ran on it. He knocked on doors and said that he would like to talk about securing the environment. They had a plan to secure the environment, the Conservative plan to combat climate change. He ran on it. He knocked on doors. He was convincing people that this was the right way to go, yet here we are. Now he is involved in seven motions basically saying the exact same thing, which is that pricing pollution does not work, and all I really want, and why I have asked it countless times today and leading up to today, is for one Conservative to get up and explain why. They could just say that they had absolutely no confidence in the member for Durham when he put forward that proposal, that they regret he did it and wish he had not. That would at least attempt to explain what is going on here, but instead, I am met with complete and utter avoidance and silence when I ask that question. I just want to understand why Conservatives have done a 180° turn on this issue. I know that life is very difficult for Canadians right now, and in particular those who are the most vulnerable. They are really struggling. I do not think it helps when Conservatives get up to say that the price on pollution is going to directly affect them, when they know full well that the money that is collected through that pricing mechanism is redistributed. As a matter of fact, more people get more back than they end up spending. The Conservatives should know this. They do know this, but they will not miss an opportunity to try to convince people that that is not the case. Why are they doing it? They are doing it solely for political gain. In their calculus, they have decided that, if we try to convince people that this price on pollution is going to make their lives worse, that means people will vote for us in the next election. It is extremely unfortunate that Conservatives would use this as an opportunity when we are talking about trying to protect and save our environment. It is unfortunate that they would do this when we know that we have to act quickly now for future generations, in particular for our children.

949 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Dec/8/22 4:43:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the member's ability to stand for 10 minutes and talk about nothing but Conservatives. I think it is a testament to himself and how little he really thinks about what Canadians are going through during this difficult time. I do have a question for him. It is interesting, when we are talking about campaign platforms. A CTV News article from August 2019 states, “Environment Minister Catherine McKenna says her government's climate strategy, including the federal carbon tax provisions, will stay the course. She dismissed claims by”—and I am quoting here, so I can use the name—“Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre that the government would stretch its promised $50 per tonne”—

125 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/8/22 4:43:37 p.m.
Watch

The member cannot be naming members, even if he is quoting. He needs to refer to him as the Leader of the Opposition or by his riding.

27 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Dec/8/22 4:43:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the article states, “She dismissed claims by the [Leader of the Official Opposition] that the government would stretch its promised $50 per tonne price cap by 2022, if re-elected this fall. I would like this member to tell his constituents why the Liberals broke their promise on raising the carbon tax past their committed $50 a tonne.

61 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 144