SoVote

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/1/23 3:12:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals label the carbon tax a “market mechanism” or a “standard”, when in reality it is a fancy way of saying that the centrepiece of their environmental policy is based on forcing Canadians to pay more. Albertans are going to pay nearly $4,000 more per year when both carbon tax 1 and 2 are imposed. Farmers would pay more than $150,000 on average to fund this failed leftist ideological experiment. Canadians need a break. Farmers need a break. When will the Prime Minister finally listen to Canadians and axe the tax?

100 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 3:12:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that he campaigned during the last election on putting carbon pricing in place. He is saying no to billions of dollars of investment already happening in Canada, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Alberta and southern Ontario, in the new economy. That is what Conservatives are saying no to. We are saying yes to fighting climate change. We are saying yes to having a strong economy.

74 words

The Speaker

Jun/1/23 3:13:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

It being 3:13 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-42. Call in the members.

42 words

The Speaker

Jun/1/23 3:26:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-42

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

18 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/1/23 3:26:13 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

21 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Jun/1/23 3:26:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can understand—

6 words

The Speaker

Jun/1/23 3:26:44 p.m.
Watch

I am asking everyone to keep quiet for a little while, or at least not to talk as loudly. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

30 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Jun/1/23 3:26:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that, in the excitement of question period, the Speaker may find it difficult to recognize me when I rise. However, for the Thursday question, I think it is very important. In fact, all my colleagues in the House of Commons cannot wait for this very important moment when they will finally hear the government's proposed agenda for tomorrow and next week, especially given the heat we experienced today. I am talking about the weather. Given that we will likely have some very long days next week, I would like the government House leader to inform us of the temperature of the House for next week.

111 words

The Speaker

Jun/1/23 3:27:33 p.m.
Watch

The Minister of Tourism.

4 words

Tourism

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 3:27:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the honour to share with our very dear colleagues in the House the message concerning the Thursday question. I am very pleased to answer my colleague. As members know, Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, was reported from committee yesterday, so we will call it for the final stages of debate starting tomorrow and then continue early next week on Monday and Tuesday. We will also give priority to Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law; Bill C-48, bail reform; and Bill C-41, humanitarian assistance. Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday will be an opposition day.

127 words

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

Jun/1/23 3:28:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to continue my speech, which I started before question period. I highlighted some very obvious hypocrisies and these are hypocrisies that we have seen from the Conservative Party of Canada. I outlined for everybody what many of us have been talking about in the House. The Liberals, the NDP and even the Bloc at times have asked the Conservatives why they ran in an election in 2021 on pricing pollution, only to come to the House immediately after that election and move virtually the exact same opposition motion about carbon pricing that they are moving today, for the 10th time since that last election, when they ran on it. What I found to be even more staggeringly offensive, or perhaps a better expression would be concerning, is that there are a number of Conservative MPs, and I believe the number, if I have it right, is 19 members of the Conservative Party, current members of the House, who not only ran in 2021 on pricing pollution, but also ran in 2008 on Stephen Harper's promise to bring in cap and trade, which is another form of pricing pollution. It is a form that, I would add, the province of Quebec continues to this day. As a result, Quebec does not have the federal pricing mechanism that many of the other provinces, such as the one I am from, Ontario, are subject to. Members can think of how far to the right this particular brand of the Conservative Party has come. This is not from Brian Mulroney, because we know it is light years away from Brian Mulroney. Brian Mulroney and Flora MacDonald, from my riding, were Progressive Conservatives who cared about the environment. They were Progressive Conservatives who fought for things such as saving the ozone layer, and who worked with Americans to do that. Those were Progressive Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives of Brian Mulroney. Brian Mulroney brought 42 countries from around the world to Montreal to talk about how to deal with acid rain. That was a progressive Conservative party, but this party, in its current form, is even further to the right than Stephen Harper. I do not know if members are aware of this, and I just became aware of it this morning, but there were ads run by the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association at one time thanking Stephen Harper for the work he was doing when it came to renewable fuels as a form of energy. Here we are in 2023, with a political party, the Conservative Party of Canada, that does not even believe in climate change. I would argue that this is really just the Reform Party using the Conservative name and the shade of blue. That might be offensive to some members sitting in the House right now, but as I read out earlier, we heard a statement from the member for Red Deer—Mountain View just two days ago, in which he basically said that this is all cyclical, happens every 10,000 years and there is nothing to see here. This is the Conservative Party of Canada we are dealing with now. We are in a world where it is so glaringly obvious that humans have contributed to climate change, and where it is so obvious that we need to actually do something about it. Rather than try to bring forward policy, create ideas and bring forward suggestions to work on protecting our environment, the Conservative Party of Canada has brought forward 10 motions in the last 18 months trying to eliminate the price on pollution, despite the fact it has already lost two elections since it was introduced.

618 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 3:33:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Conservatives losing an election. What I think is important, for anyone who is following the debate today, and we have heard it in questions and comments, and during question period, is the fact that 338 candidates in the last federal election, who were all Conservative candidates, had a platform, a platform that my friend and colleague tried to table earlier today, which made it very clear that they were campaigning in favour of a price on pollution. I am wondering if he could just discuss that a little more, the details and his perception of that particular promise.

105 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/1/23 3:34:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is true. They might disagree with it now, and to the defence of one member of the Conservative Party, she, of the numerous times I have asked that question, was the one member who stood up and said she disagreed with the policy they ran on in 2021. I will hand it to that one member. I will not call her out by name right now because I do not want her to receive any emails to her office to that effect, but every other Conservative we asked the question of just completely skated around it. At least they could stand up to say they ran on it in 2021, it was part of their platform and it was a price on pollution, but now they have changed their mind. That would be so much more honourable than just trying to avoid answering the question every time. I did try to table that platform, as the parliamentary secretary said. I tried to table the 2021 and 2008 platforms, in which they talk about pricing pollution, in the House before question period. Do members know who yelled out no to that, not letting me table them? It was Conservatives. They would not let me table their own platforms.

210 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jun/1/23 3:35:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, being an old hockey guy, I always appreciate the fourth line grinder doing their role and doing what they have to do to make sure they are part of a team, and I appreciate that member's ability to stand on his feet to talk about nothing for 20 minutes. It is fantastic, and I think he has a certain amount of skill at that. He has found his role on his team, and I do not begrudge him that, because he has that kind of talent. I do have a simple question. I know the member talks about our platforms from the last couple campaigns a lot. The Liberal platform promised not to raise the carbon tax to more than $50 a tonne, ever. I am wondering how he goes back to his constituents and rights that ship when he made that promise to them while door knocking. I would also like to hear an answer on that. I appreciate his fourth line talent.

167 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/1/23 3:36:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will answer it, and I think I have already answered it to that member and other Conservatives. The policy changed. It is different now than it was then. Can members see how easy it was for me to directly answer the question? It may have been a position we had at one time, and now the position is different, but we are honest and open with Canadians about that. The question is why that member and other Conservatives will not be honest and open with Canadians about how their position has changed on climate change. We will note that the member complimented me, in some form I guess, by saying I spoke about nothing. He is a Conservative who comes from a party where 54% of its base says climate change is not real, and he is a Conservative who shares the same side of the aisle as the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who talked about climate change two days ago as though it were just something that happens every 10,000 years, as though there is nothing to see here. Only a Conservative who shares that space would refer to my dire plea to do something about global warming and climate change as me talking about nothing.

214 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/1/23 3:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, something I find infuriating about the motion, and we see have seen this every time in the various versions of the same motion coming to the floor of the House from the Conservative Party, is that it never mentions the profits of oil and gas companies. The price on pollution went up 2¢ a litre in the last year. Wholesale margins, profits of the largest oil and gas companies across the country, went up 18¢ a litre. Why is it that the Conservative Party is not talking about this? To go further, does the member support a windfall profit tax? We could use those funds to invest in the climate solutions we need.

117 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/1/23 3:38:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do not talk about it because that is who their base is. That is who donates to them. When they put forward 10 motions about getting rid of the carbon tax, that is who they are targeting with those motions. When the Leader of the Opposition comes in here to speak to that issue, clips it afterward and puts it out there in an email blast, he is talking to those people. That is why they will not talk about it. To the member's other question about a windfall tax, I think it is a very good discussion to have. I am completely open to it. I think we need to look at absolutely every possible solution to fight climate change, and I am more than willing to work with my colleague and other members of the House to see how we can go about doing that.

152 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Jun/1/23 3:38:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will ask the parliamentary secretary the exact same question I asked the parliamentary secretary sitting beside him just a little while ago in the debate, which he did not answer. How many trees have been planted by the Liberal government under its promised two billion tree program? Once we get that number, could the parliamentary secretary explain why the program is so bureaucratic and difficult for communities, ridings, counties and conservation groups to even apply and qualify for it? I ask because I think this program is a good idea. We should be planting more trees right across this great country we have, but nobody can seem to qualify for the program, and the trees are not getting planted. My final comment is that the parliamentary secretary may want to tell the Minister of Public Safety of the parliamentary secretary's role and position. The Minister of Public Safety yesterday in the Senate did not even know the position existed here in the House of Commons.

169 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/1/23 3:39:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start with the latter comment and come to the beginning. The Minister of Public Safety was responding to Senator Plett's comment about me being a parliamentary secretary to the leader in the Senate, which I am not. I am the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. That is to correct the first error he made. Second, I will answer the member's question the exact same way that my parliamentary secretary colleague did. I was here and heard the whole thing. He started off by saying he found it very hypocritical that the member would challenge us on a platform commitment that we have only partially delivered on, given the fact that the member ran on putting a price on pollution and is somehow oblivious to that fact now. He does not think it is necessary to answer for that while he makes these demands, and that is hypocritical. To the other point, which is what my parliamentary secretary colleague said specifically, does the member not realize that if we plant that many trees, we are not going to do it all at once? It is not a linear graph. It is going to happen exponentially. Does the member realize that to create that many trees, we have to start with a seedling? The seedling has to be properly germinated and turned into a tree to get to the point where we can actually plant it. I cannot believe I am actually having this high school science discussion with the member, but it is the reality of how trees grow.

266 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 3:41:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given that we are talking about the environment, I wanted to highlight one thing that I know my friend is very much in tune with. It is the idea of batteries. We have seen the Volkswagen investment, with the types of green jobs that are going to be there going forward. The government is assisting on that, working with other jurisdictions, investing in Canadians and building a healthier, stronger, greener economy. I know the member has further ideas, locally, that he has been advocating for very strongly.

89 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 204