SoVote

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/8/22 4:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, it is easy to talk about Conservatives for so long when they give me so much material. Second of all, I will answer that question. Clearly, at some point along the way, it was determined that it would be most effective to raise the rate again, and that is why they did it. Did members see how easy that was? I answered the question. A decision was made after the fact that we actually needed to increase it again. Now, I would love for a member from the Conservative Party to stand up and show me exactly how easy it is to answer the question of why they have done a complete 180 on this issue of pricing pollution.

124 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/8/22 4:44:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one has to be some special kind of incompetent to get lower percentage marks in the polls than Danielle Smith, but then Doug Ford can step forward. He tried to rip up the charter rights of janitors in schools and thought it was a good idea, and he is a guy who is trying to pave over the green belt for his buddies. People forget the first thing Doug Ford did was to rip up the carbon pricing system in Ontario. People did not pay a carbon tax in Ontario. Doug Ford said that he was going to rip up the system that makes it possible for Ontarians not to pay a carbon tax, and now Ontarians are going to pay a carbon tax. That allowed Doug Ford to jump up and down, holler and shout, and go to the Supreme Court and say he was going to fight a carbon tax that was imposed because of his dumb decision. We see Conservatives, time and time again, coming into the House with policies that are making it more and more difficult for people while the planet is in crisis. I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks it is about Conservatives in Ontario supporting someone like Doug Ford on such a dumb position?

218 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/8/22 4:46:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. In 2006, it was Ontario and Quebec that made the cap-and-trade deal with California. Then as soon as Doug Ford came along, he ripped it up and said that he was out of this deal. What do we see five, six years later? We see Quebec and California having progressed so much further in environmental protections, in electrifying their grid and in encouraging electric vehicles. They seem to be light years ahead now. Ontario got stuck behind because Doug Ford thought, just like these Conservatives do, in my opinion, that they can play to fears and they can play to people's emotions when they start talking about issues like this. We should not be surprised about this since Conservatives voted 54% at the last convention that climate change does not exist. I guess we should not be surprised that they take policy decisions like this.

155 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Dec/8/22 4:47:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is truly the champion of slamming Conservatives in the House. He is the all-around champion. Every time he gets up, he slams the Conservatives for 10, 15 or 20 minutes. It is stunning. He talked about the Conservatives' climate change plan, but let us talk about the Liberals' plan. Let us talk about their record. Since the Liberals have been in power, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. Canada is ranked 58th out of 60 countries, as was said at COP27. Canada is the second-largest investor in fossil fuels in the G20. The government has said that we are investing $8.5 billion U.S. per year. It said that in 2023—that is, in 24 days—that investment will drop to zero. Is that really going to happen? What is the Liberal government's plan to combat one of the greatest crises of our time?

157 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/8/22 4:48:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what am I hearing here? Is the Bloc Québécois now suddenly against pricing pollution? That is what it sounds like. The Bloc Québécois is falling into the exact same trap that the Conservatives have, which is saying that emissions in this particular sector have gone up and, therefore, it is a failed plan. They are doing that because they know there are too many variables that go into this. It is not as linear as the member would like to suggest, and there is more to it than just the simple answer he gave.

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Dec/8/22 4:48:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the opposition motion today. As I usually do, I will go over the parts of the text and address each part accordingly. First, the Conservatives keep saying that the price of pollution will be tripled, but they fail to mention two very important things. First, the money collected will be given back to individuals and businesses and, second, the price will increase progressively over the next eight years until 2030. The second part of the motion is on the estimated increase in the price of food in 2023. I think that the Conservatives failed to illustrate and quantify the role that the price on carbon plays in this increase. When one actually reads through the report, it makes clear that the key drivers to food inflation we are seeing, both in 2022 and what is being projected next year, are because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia represent 27% of the global grain market, which has been restricted and we have has seen access challenges. We are seeing rising prices on oil and gas as a result of the war as well. Supply chains are also being affected. We have just gone through COVID and there is still a zero-COVID policy in China, one of the major manufacturers and distributors of products for around the world. I know there can be a really important foreign affairs discussion on the Canada-China relationship, but right now, the supply chain is still being affected. There is labour as well. We have a million unfilled jobs in Canada, and western countries around the world are dealing with similar challenges with demographics. As baby boomers retire, that large demographic works its way out of the system of workers. For me, that is what is driving this, and that is what the report says, at page 15, which is extremely important. However, the Conservatives are laying this all on one policy choice, and I do not think they have been able to illustrate how that represents a significant increase whatsoever in the price increases we are seeing. It is also important to recognize that nearly all farm inputs are exempt from the carbon price. Yes, transportation fuels and other indirect costs can and will have an impact, but with Bill C-234, which is before the House right now, as it has been reported back from committee, we might see an exemption altogether on direct farm costs associated with any type of carbon pricing. That is because there is a recognition that, yes, we are encouraging farmers, and farmers are taking on great innovation themselves. The government has put almost $1.5 billion in the last couple of budgets to help make that transition, but some of those commercial technologies are not readily available. That is the balance that we have walked thus far. The third and fourth part of the motion concerns the challenges in financial affordability. On this side of the House, as I have already said, we are concerned about the cost of living and we are bringing in measures to address that. This gives me the opportunity to talk about the current economic situation, the days to come and what we need to do to find a balance between supporting vulnerable people and maintaining our solid financial position. It does give me an opportunity to talk about where Canada's economic and relative debt position is. It is important because there might be some folks in the public gallery who have been watching this debate or watching it at home, and my God, they would think that things are completely broken in this country. That is the message the leader of the official opposition sends and it is very problematic. Canada actually has one of the strongest records in the G7 on economic performance. As I mentioned, I do not think any parliamentarian in this House would somehow suggest that there are not challenges and that there are not affordability difficulties, but when we look at our economic position to comparative countries, we are extremely strong. I find it ironic that members of the Conservative Party stand up and talk about government spending when they were supportive of many of the measures that this government took during the pandemic. Now that the Conservatives have been in place and now that there has been a cost to the Canadian treasury to make sure we were protecting Canadians and protecting businesses, they talk about how government is spending too much money. It is that hyprocrisy. The member for Kingston and the Islands said it far better than I can in saying that the Conservative Party actually ran on a carbon price just 13 months ago during the election in 2021. He is right. Thirteen months ago, the Conservative Party said this was a good idea. Now the Conservatives stand before us saying they never would have thought up such an idea. It is that mixed messaging that creates challenges in terms of Canadians believing whether or not the Conservative Party is authentic in its beliefs. Also, we just passed the fall economic statement. The third reading vote happened about an hour ago. It is important to recognize that not only is this government walking a key balance between making sure that vulnerable Canadians have the supports they need during this difficult time, but we are also maintaining a strong fiscal position. We are not being irresponsible with government spending. Again, I want to go back to those comparative numbers. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We also have the lowest actual deficit as a proportion of our debt in the G7 as well. When we look at other comparable countries, the Conservatives would paint a picture that somehow things are very poor in this country. Actually we are doing very well in an international context. I want to talk a bit more around some of the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party as it relates to the things we talked about. There is a Parliamentary Budget Officer report that talks about some of the money the government has spent during the pandemic as we try to collect money from some individuals who might not have been eligible. The Conservatives voted on those measures in this House and supported them at the time. We have heard comments this week that somehow this is terrible and that the government should have had more accountability. We have been very clear that, had the program been tightly designed, so much so that it would have taken weeks or months on end to get that program money out to the individuals in question, they would have been in a much more dire situation. In fact, that same PBO report said that if the government had not done what it had done, poverty would have doubled in this country. I want to remind my Conservative colleagues, when they reference that report, that if their suggestion is that we should have been even more bureaucratic and put in even more program requirements at a time of incredible instability, and the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about what would move forward, we wanted to be able to act quickly. We knew there would still have to be an accounting on the other side, and that is something this government will be taking forward in the days ahead, but we did it to protect Canadians. We did it to make sure that the economic principles of the country were strong, and that Canadians knew we had their backs, and that is exactly why I am proud to stand on this side of the House. The last thing is on carbon pricing, because that is the topic of the day. The member for Kingston and the Islands did a good job when one of my colleagues joked about just cutting that 10 minutes and playing it again. Maybe we would, but there have been a lot of questions about Atlantic Canada. I want to remind my constituents, indeed those in Atlantic Canada, that notwithstanding the Conservative Party making the pitch that it is going to apply this winter, the carbon price will not apply to home heating this winter in Atlantic Canada. I want to really highlight the programs that we have put in place. There is the $500 million that we have put out. Today in question period, the Minister of Immigration talked about this program providing $5,000 grants to help homes transition off home heating oil. First and foremost, that is about affordability. That is about saving thousands of dollars a year in energy bill costs. That matters to my constituents and people across the country, but particularly in Atlantic Canada. Of course, it also is beneficial for the environment. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues. That is one of my favourite parts of this, so I will sit down and look forward to taking them.

1508 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Dec/8/22 4:58:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I want to talk a bit about how we rank among our peers around the world in how our economy has performed. In 2019 to 2021, Canada had the second-highest increase in gross debt-to-GDP ratio out of 33 countries, only behind Japan. One would have thought our economy would have improved, but despite leading our peers in debt accumulation, Canada did not outperform our peer group in economic growth during the pandemic. Canada had the 11th lowest real GDP growth. The fact is we spent almost more money than any other country, but our GDP growth did not keep pace. Would my hon. colleague say that is a record the Liberals should be proud of?

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/8/22 4:59:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we stand on our record on this side of the House that in a time of immense need, we were there to help support Canadians. I want to take this back and contrast this to the Conservative approach back in 2008-09 when the Harper government frankly did not get involved whatsoever. The economic scarring lasted years. In fact, issues lasted until 2015. I also want to remind the member that while he can say the program and the way we rolled it out was somehow not beneficial for economic growth or otherwise, he voted for those measures. He was involved in helping to support them. At that time, all of us as parliamentarians were saying it was the right thing to do. I find it a little bit ironic and a little bit facetious that he is raising this now, that somehow that was not good spending at the time.

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Dec/8/22 5:00:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank him for giving the first part in French. We are happy to hear the language of Molière in the House. The inflation crisis is impacting everyone, but it obviously impacts low-income individuals more, and low-income pensioners especially, because their income is rarely or not fully indexed. The Bloc Québécois called on the government to increase old age security for all seniors at the age of 65. The government responded by increasing benefits for seniors aged 75 and over. This indirectly forces low-income seniors aged 65 to 74 to return to work. According to my esteemed colleague, is that the answer his government is giving seniors under the age of 75?

134 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Dec/8/22 5:01:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will try to answer in French. The Bloc is calling for an increase in old age security for people across Canada. My problem with the Bloc Québécois proposal is that, if the government increases benefits by 10% for all seniors in Canada, this represents an additional expenditure of $10 billion a year. It is essentially built-in spending. I am happy to have that conversation. It is a massive expenditure, especially with baby boomers coming across at the same time. In hindsight, the $3 billion that the government is spending every year, I would perhaps have liked to see that be for 65 and up and targeted on lower income, but we are promising to increase the guaranteed income supplement for those who are 65 and up, which will help to address that gap. It is fine to talk about spending for seniors, but we need an economic plan to make sure that as our baby boomers come through, we can actually afford it long term.

182 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Dec/8/22 5:02:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do want to ask the hon. member about carbon pricing on the largest emitters. The Canadian Climate Institute, the institute that our federal government established, analyzed the federal carbon pricing benchmark. While it agreed that carbon pricing works and strong carbon pricing is essential to any credible climate plan, it highlighted how it does not do enough to curb industrial emissions. Output-based pricing creates loopholes for the largest emitters. Again, the Liberals were saying the right things on climate and doing something on carbon pricing, but are unwilling to match their actions to the scale of the crisis we are facing and are unwilling to make the biggest polluters pay their fair share. Does my colleague agree the government needs to fix the output-based pricing system?

131 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 144