SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 12:13:09 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Drummond.

5 words

Drummond

Jun/1/23 12:13:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Earlier we heard the Conservatives touting carbon capture technologies, and we often see the Liberals doing the same. However, just about every scientist in the world criticizes those technologies. The Conservatives praise this technology a lot, saying that it is a cure-all, a miracle, and that, in the end, it will mean oil sands development is not so bad for the environment. This morning, I heard a Conservative MP push the envelope even further, incredibly enough. He talked about the forestry industry. We know that trees capture carbon. This MP asked whether we should also tax the forestry industry because trees capture carbon. When misinformation like that is sent out to the public, does it not make things even more confusing for citizens? Does it not make the job even harder for those who want to provide correct information?

151 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Jun/1/23 12:14:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that attempts to confuse or conflate different issues and different topics is not helpful in the context of such an important debate. When it comes to the forest industry, we need to ensure that our forest practices are truly renewable. It is an industry that my family has worked in for years and years. If done properly, and if practised sustainably, it can be a renewable resource that actually helps our climate. We are not there yet. We need to get there.

90 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Jun/1/23 12:14:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, these are sad times for rural Canada, and specifically for rural Atlantic Canada, its people and industries that depend on fuel to move everything. The Liberal-NDP coalition has decided carbon tax 1, which will add 41¢ per litre to gasoline when fully implemented, is not enough of a beating to lay on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Maritimers. I stand here today on behalf of the good people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and on behalf of my province and all of Atlantic Canada to support our Conservative motion. I will be sharing my time with our hon. Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of all these people in Atlantic Canada who are downtrodden, I stand here to support our Conservative motion to recognize the failure of carbon tax 1 and to immediately cancel carbon tax 2. Carbon tax 2 is cleverly disguised as the clean fuel standard. The costly coalition will argue that carbon tax 2 is not a tax. What is next? Will income tax be called the “income standard” or will the harmonized sales tax be renamed the “harmonized sales standard”? We do not know where all this is going, but the Liberal-NDP marriage, which is rumoured to be entering some period of marriage counselling not long after the honeymoon, will never run out of creative ways to tax us. That is one thing that is guaranteed. Carbon tax 1, let us face it, is a complete failure. Not one single solitary emissions reduction target has been met. In fact, our emissions are higher than they were in 2015 when our country started to head for the toilet. President Biden recently stood right here just a few feet from where I am standing right now. He is a close personal friend of the Prime Minister. He has decided not to place a carbon tax on fuel in the United States, and guess what, U.S. emissions have dropped since 2015. For us here and for people in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they are going to pay an extra $1,316 per year by the time carbon tax 1 is fully implemented. Carbon tax 2, by the time it is fully implemented, will be another $850 a year for families. Can I get a drum roll for the grand total? There is no drum roll as they cannot be proud enough to give that a drum roll. The total is $2,166 per year. P.E.I. does not have anyone on this side to represent it and stand up for it. For the poor people of P.E.I., it is going to cost those folks $2,081 a year. I referenced net because these Liberals, including Liberal MPs like those from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and Long Range Mountains, claim that we will get more back in rebates than we will pay. These two federal ministers from Newfoundland are thrilled, according to a SaltWire article from this past November 22. Imagine our own federal representatives in this cabinet thrilled about the extra costs being placed on the lives of their people. Liberals will tell us that Conservatives are presenting fake numbers. Earlier today I heard exactly what my hon. colleague said when he blamed us for using fake numbers. These are not magical, illusionary or fabricated figures. These are figures that were calculated by the PBO, who is a Liberal-appointed official. According to the PBO, carbon tax has an inflationary effect. Guess who else said that tax was inflationary? It was the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Our federal members, including the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who was sick and tired of hearing about the cold winter and what we are doing about it, do not believe the PBO or the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is unbelievable. They are expecting the people they serve to believe them instead of experts. Atlantic Canadians are not buying what the Liberal government is selling. The Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey, close personal friend of the Prime Minister, and three other Atlantic premiers wrote to the Prime Minister last fall begging him not to place the carbon tax on home heating fuel. The silence was deafening. Last week, the same four premiers reached out to the Minister of Environment and asked him to not implement carbon tax 2. Once they realized that the PBO had identified the big hit that it was going to make to the pocketbooks of Atlantic Canadians, the premiers went to work. Will the Prime Minister and his climate-change wingman listen to the premiers of Atlantic Canada, or will they barrel ahead with no regard for the people who gave them 32 seats in 2015? This new tax, disguised as a standard, will cost families in Newfoundland and Labrador $850 a year when it is fully implemented. Who besides seniors and families is going to pay? The answer is simple: everyone will pay. Carbon tax 1 is crippling the mining, forestry, tourism, and oil and gas industries in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that effect will accelerate as we move toward 2030. Carbon tax 2 will be charged on all fuel in these industries and this new tax will even be placed on fuel used by fishermen to land their catch and haul around their gear as they endeavour to feed their families in this challenging environment. Farmers are going to pay as well. Not only are these failed tax policies impacting the bottom lines of household and manufacturing industries, now our farmers and fishermen are taking on added costs that will affect their bottom lines. Farmers and fishermen feed families. Taxing their operations with the new standard is an attack on the livelihoods of farmers and fishermen, and it is a threat to our food security in this country. At a time when people are struggling to survive, the tone-deaf, costly coalition strikes again. Madam Speaker, you might be thinking to yourself, “Where is the member's seal skin bow tie?” I did not wear it today. My clothes today represent the people I represent.

1044 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 12:22:38 p.m.
Watch

The member cannot refer to props even if they are very discreet. The hon. member has two and a half minutes left.

22 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Jun/1/23 12:22:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is not nearly enough time to express the disgust that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have for the way the people who are here representing them have been voting. We have come with motions to get rid of the carbon tax, to reduce these inflationary taxes, and now we have another one coming: the standard. Will these members from Newfoundland and Labrador, my six colleagues across the way, vote with their people? This is the $64 question. Are they going to vote to diminish the tax burden that is hauling them down and making them suffer? The six Liberal MPs who sit over there were not sent here to inflict suffering on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They were sent here to represent them, to bring them up and to make their standard of living better. An. hon. member: And they are. Mr. Clifford Small: Madam Speaker, I just received a little heckling. Yes, the Liberals have done a great job over there. They delayed the Bay du Nord project by four years. They put well over 100 conditions on the Bay du Nord project. We are now going to lose three years of royalties on nearly 800 million barrels of oil a year because of the great work they have done. I implore the six members from Newfoundland and Labrador to vote with the goodness in their hearts that I am sure they have. They need to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and vote yes to our Conservative motion.

259 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 12:25:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is just bizarre, because the Conservatives want to take a tool off the table that is going to fight climate change and put more money in people's pockets. By the way, the Conservatives campaigned on a clean fuel standard and on a price on pollution, and they are sitting there, straight-faced, and it is just bizarre. They never talk about the cost of climate change. There was a $4-billion impact from hurricane Fiona. Houses were washed into the sea. Lives were lost, and the Conservatives are even mocking our measures to transition away from dirty foreign oil to heat pumps. What have they got against heat pumps?

113 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Jun/1/23 12:25:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what a character. What do I have against heat pumps? I do not have anything against heat pumps, but what I do have something against is that team of Liberals over there that is destroying our country. They are at it again. Bay du Nord was delayed by three years. There is close to 800 million barrels of oil per year, the cleanest oil in the world, that we are going to lose the royalties on, which we desperately need to fund our health care and pave our roads.

91 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Jun/1/23 12:26:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, not for Newfoundland and Labrador. As we know, whether we are in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec or anywhere else in Canada, the main reason that should motivate us to be here is to help significantly reduce the impact of our carbon footprint on citizens. What does my colleague think and what does he have to say to his fellow citizens about the costs generated by the failure to act on climate change, which is affecting their living conditions and their health?

95 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Jun/1/23 12:27:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question, because we have a great project that was built in the sixties, the Churchill Falls hydro project, which has contributed lots to reducing emissions and has contributed a lot to the province of Quebec as well. Quebec has done very well off it. We have been partners, but not quite so equitably from our point of view. However, going forward we have lots of hydroelectric resources in Newfoundland and Labrador that we can produce. We can use technology, not taxes, to reduce greenhouse emissions and to try to mitigate this climate change. We cannot deal with what China is pumping into the atmosphere. That is something that the Liberals can help on with their Chinese friends.

123 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/1/23 12:28:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was just on Wikipedia, and I note that my friend from Newfoundland and Labrador ran for the first time, winning by a narrow margin, in the 2021 election on a platform that included the following, and I will just read it: We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline...turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard [and] Our improvements will include: Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia’s policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels... That member just ran less than two years ago on a policy that sounds to my ear an awful lot like the policy he would be cancelling with the motion before us. Can he explain the difference?

137 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Jun/1/23 12:29:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is no doubt a smart individual, but I will tell members who is even smarter than him. It is his soothsayer who is telling him what I campaigned at the doors with. I will tell members what I campaigned at the doors with. I said to the people of Coast of Bays that I am going to fight for their salmon farming industry and that I am going to stand up in the House of Commons and support Newfoundland and Labrador's aquaculture industry and not let it get destroyed, like my hon. colleague is trying to do in B.C.

106 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

Jun/1/23 12:29:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to follow the great member from Newfoundland and Labrador, a man who has a stronger and more honest and powerful voice for Newfoundland and Labrador than all other MPs from that province combined. He understands that his job is to be the voice of Newfoundland in Ottawa, not the voice of Ottawa in Newfoundland. Indeed, that is all of our roles. Here we are today in a country where nine in 10 young people believe they will never be able to afford a home, something that would have been unimaginable eight years ago. There are 1.5 million Canadians eating at food banks, and one in five are skipping breakfast, lunch or dinner because they cannot afford the cost of food. What do the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc think is the remedy for all of that? It is a 61¢-a-litre carbon tax. Let us go back, though, and examine the history of this tax. First, the Prime Minister said that it would give people more money than they pay, a tax that makes them better off. He said he would send out cheques to give people back the money they paid. It turns out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer he named proved that people will end up paying approximately $1,500 more in taxes than they get back in rebates. Then the Prime Minister said the tax would never go above $50 a tonne, but what he realized was that his tax was so ineffective at tackling emissions that he would have to raise it more than triple that $50. Of course, that news came out after the election rather than before. Another falsehood is that he said this tax would help us meet our emissions reduction targets. He has missed every single target he has set. He did not even meet them in the year 2020, when Canadians were locked down and banned from using their automobiles. Even then, his tax was so ineffective that it did not reach the targets he set. Those are three falsehoods on which he built the tax in the first place. When the first tax failed, what was his solution? It was to bring in another one. If it failed once, do the same thing all over again. The definition of “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again expecting to get a different result. The Liberals now have a second carbon tax. The first one will take the price of a litre up 41¢ and the second will bring it up another 17¢, to a total of 58¢ a litre. However, they are not done yet. They want to charge HST on the tax and the tax, to get it up to a full 61¢ a litre in taxes. We can imagine, then, that a cost of a litre of gas will be two dollars, three dollars or maybe four dollars if the Prime Minister has his way. We should keep in mind that higher gas prices are not a bug; they are a feature of Liberal Party policy. The goal is to raise gas prices. That is not a secondary consequence. It is the policy, and it is a policy supported by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. The NDP, which pioneered the carbon tax, brought it to B.C. and has raised it in that province higher than anywhere else, is voting with its Liberal bosses in Ottawa to more than triple the carbon tax on British Columbians. What are the consequences of a tax on energy? When one taxes energy, one taxes everything, because everything has to be dug, built, moved, cooled and heated using energy. Let us start with food. If we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, we ultimately tax the food itself. This is at a time when food price inflation is at a 40-year high. We just got more evidence. The Prime Minister told us inflation is on the decline. Worry not; it is all over. The nightmare has ended and inflation is going away. What happened in the month of April? Inflation shot up again. Why did it shoot up in April? What happened in the last part of March? There were two things. One was that the finance minister introduced $60 billion of new inflationary spending, or, as she called it, gas on the inflationary fire, two days before the start of April. Then the carbon tax hit on April 1, April Fool's Day. The joke is on Canadians. The tax hits, the deficits hit and inflation is back on the rise. It is cause and effect. However, they are just getting started. The tax right now is only 14¢ a litre. We used to say “triple, triple, triple”, but it is not triple anymore. The Liberals want to quadruple it and more, from 14¢— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, it is quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple. There is a tongue twister, but it is going to be even more painful to pay than to say. We have families already living in poverty, and we know that the rich guys will be fine. They have no problem. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this latest carbon tax will hit the poorest people the worst. Those with the least will pay the most, because energy constitutes a bigger part of their family budget. Rich people spend a smaller amount of their family budget on energy. We know that it will affect the single mom, the truck driver, the barber and the student who is trying to scrape together an extra $4,000 or $5,000 a year as part of his 25-year plan to save for a down payment. Those are the people who will end up paying this tax, and for what? Canada places 58th out of 63 nations in the climate change implementation index. We are behind the rest of the world. According to this index, China has a better record than the Liberal government. It is worse than the dictatorship the Prime Minister so admires when it comes to climate matters. We get all the pain and none of the gain. If the Liberals want a real plan for climate change, why not technology and not taxes. Let us speed up and lower the cost of carbon-free energy. Let us cut through the red tape and allow Quebec to build hydroelectric dams. This would allow Quebeckers to double the amount of electricity available for electrification. Under my leadership, the government will allow Quebec to speed up construction of this green energy network. We could approve the wave power that Nova Scotia was attempting to permit with a private sector company, using tidal forces to bring electricity to the great shores of Nova Scotia and power its grid with lower emissions. I would have approved that in a millisecond. The bureaucratic gatekeepers blocked it for years, and the company got up and left. I will green-light green projects like that. I will green-light nuclear energy, allowing for small modular nuclear reactors to electrify places like Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. They have already signed memoranda of understanding to move forward with nuclear power, but not if it takes 25 years to get it permitted. What kind of safety and environmental knowledge would we gain in the last 17 years of that process that we could not gain in the first three years? Why not compress the work? Yes, let us protect safety. Yes, let us protect the environment. However, let us do it quickly, because our environment and our energy grid cannot wait. Finally, for carbon capture and storage, we would incentivize our mighty energy sector, which is the most advanced, sophisticated and ethical in the world, to reinvest some of its growth in cleaning its operations so we can have the lowest-emitting energy sector anywhere in the world and can put that carbon right back in the geological structures from whence it came. All of these things are possible if we have a government in Ottawa that gets out of the way, green-lights green projects and incentivizes reinvestment of market revenues back into clean, green technology. The Liberals' philosophy is very different. If it moves, they tax it. If it keeps moving, they regulate it. When it stops moving, they subsidize it. That is a nonsensical approach. What we have here is common sense. The common sense of the common people, united for our common home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

1464 words

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

Jun/1/23 12:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot is said in this House, when we have debates on this topic, about the fact that all members of the Conservative caucus who sit here today ran on pricing pollution in 2021. However, the Leader of the Opposition sits in a special club, a club that is joined by five other Ontario MPs, six from Alberta, one from B.C., one from Manitoba, one from New Brunswick, one from Quebec and three from Saskatchewan. This is a club of MPs who not only ran on it in 2021, but also ran on it in 2006. In 2006, the member, along with all the other MPs I just referenced, ran on Stephen Harper's plan to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gas and air pollution. The member has now run, with other members from the Conservative caucus, on pricing pollution twice. Could he explain the flip-flop?

158 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Jun/1/23 12:40:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have stood for exactly the same thing the entire time. When Prime Minister Harper was in office, he did not implement a carbon tax. He thoroughly and forcefully rejected the carbon tax the Liberal Party has proposed. Instead what he did was incentivize technology. That is why we reduced greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy in this country. For example, we worked with the Province of Alberta and its tier system, which encourages large industrial energy companies to reinvest in reducing the intensity of their emissions. They succeeded, reducing emissions per barrel by approximately 30%. This approach works. By using market forces and competitive technology, our free enterprise system can reduce emissions and build a cleaner, greener future that brings powerful paycheques home to Canadians.

129 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/1/23 12:41:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, according to what the Leader of the Opposition said at the beginning of his speech, nine out of 10 young people believe they will have difficulty buying a house and becoming homeowners. That is certainly true. We need to take action on that and develop social housing, among other things. However, that is not today's topic. We are talking about the carbon tax and the fact that the Conservative Party is constantly calling for all environmental measures to be completely abolished. He talks as if everyone else in the House of Commons is completely unreasonable and out of touch, when, in my opinion, it is quite the opposite. My question for the Leader of the Opposition is this. Does he recognize that members of the House are capable of taking reasonable action, by voting in favour of Bill C-234, for example? I asked the question this morning and did not get an answer. Does he agree that we were reasonable in voting for Bill C‑234? What is he going to do for the 10 out of 10 young people who are asking us to take action on climate change?

199 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Jun/1/23 12:42:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, are the members of the Bloc Québécois capable of being reasonable? Perhaps they are, but they certainly are not acting like it. We do not know why they are hardly ever reasonable. The members of the Bloc Québécois agree with the Liberals and the New Democrats on almost every political issue, except the location of the nation's capital. That is the only issue they disagree on. The member mentioned that I said that nine out of 10 young people cannot buy a home. He says that has nothing to do with the carbon tax. I am sorry, but houses need to be heated, and heating requires energy. The carbon tax increases the cost of home heating, which means that many young people cannot afford a home. That is one of the reasons we want to eliminate this carbon tax.

151 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 12:43:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to quote a document, which reads as follows: “We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline...we burn, turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Our improvements will include: Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia's policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels”. That comes from the Conservative Party election platform, so it is rather strange for the leader of the official opposition to be rising in the House today to contradict his own political platform. I would like him to explain how he thinks he can lower greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the fossil fuel production.

124 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Jun/1/23 12:44:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are still against the carbon tax. The member will never be able to quote any statement made by me at any point in my political career that supports a tax on carbon. I have always been against it and I still am. The New Democrats want to raise taxes and income tax on the backs of the working class. The New Democrats are for the ultra rich, whom the government makes richer. We stand for ordinary folk, the people who work.

84 words

Mrs. Rechie Valdez (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 12:45:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. Since I am speaking today on June 1, I would be remiss if I did not say happy National Indigenous History Month— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

42 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 204