SoVote

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/1/23 3:42:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the future is in electrification. That is where it is going to be. There is a transition happening before us, and there is nothing the Conservatives can do or say to change that. The real question is, where is Canada going to be in that regard? Are we going to be leading at the forefront of it so that we can export our technology and become prosperous as a result? Or are we going to wait until every other country has done it and buy the technology off them? This government has set us up in such a way that we can bring investments into Canada early on. We are taking a measurable risk on that by investing in companies and letting them establish in Canada and build their roots here. However, we will become the exporters of that technology throughout the world. That is leadership. That is what the government has been doing.

156 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Ms. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 3:43:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

16 words

Gantic
Rable

Mr. Luc Berthold

Jun/1/23 3:43:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, following the member's multiple requests today for unanimous consent to table the Conservatives' platform for two election campaigns, I am requesting unanimous consent to table the Liberal Party's fiscal plan from the 2015 campaign. It says, “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.”

75 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 3:43:35 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. An hon. member: Nay.

19 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/1/23 3:43:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. We need to start today with a bit of history. There is an expression that says those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. That appears to be true of the government, which has never met a tax it did not want to increase. The Liberal government first introduced its clean fuel standard in 2016. The effect on Canadians was noticeable. Some lower- and middle-income homeowners found it difficult to heat their homes due to the price increases associated with this standard. In effect, it was a tax on those who could least afford to pay it. Three years ago, the Department of the Environment put the direct costs of the clean fuel standard on Canadian households at $2.4 billion, and I am sure it is way more now. The Liberal-NDP plan for the environment is not designed to combat climate change. It is a plan to increase taxes. The clean fuel regulations require liquid fossil fuel producers to gradually reduce the carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel they produce and sell for use in Canada. That is a worthy goal, but what happens to producers that do not meet that standard? They will be taxed. What will they do when they are taxed? They will pass the tax on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, which the Liberals do not mind because then they can add more taxes to the higher prices. With inflation already at historic levels, this new clean fuel regulations tax is a tax that Canadians do not need. Giving more money to the Liberals to help them mismanage the Canadian economy and the federal budget is not the way to fight climate change. After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians have seen their lives become more unaffordable thanks to the inflationary carbon tax. Now the Liberals are bringing in a second carbon tax. Do they not understand that they are making life unaffordable? Do they not understand that people are struggling to make ends meet and that adding to that tax burden makes things worse, not better? I can see the looks on the faces of the Liberals. It is not hard to tell what they are thinking as I say this. I know what their questions will be when I finish speaking. They are going to ask me why I did not mention that their government is offering Canadians a carbon tax rebate, and whether I understand that the carbon tax does not really cost anyone any more. If that is the case, why have it at all? The truth is that the carbon tax is not offset by carbon tax rebates. It is a source of government revenue, just like any other tax. My Liberal friends do not want to admit that they find it better to live in a dream world than admit their taxes are hurting the people they are supposed to serve. They do not want to hear about the numbers the Parliamentary Budget Officer has given us. They do not want to talk about how their first carbon tax is going to cost the average Canadian family $710 this year after taking their rebate into account. They would prefer that I did not mention that once the second carbon tax is fully implemented, the cost to the average Canadian family after rebates will increase to $1,160 annually. Let us talk about the true cost of carbon taxes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household an extra $573 per year without any rebate, with families in some provinces facing costs as high as $1,157. Both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000 for each family depending on the province in which they live. The combined impact of the two Liberal carbon taxes will be an extra 61¢ for every litre of gasoline at the pumps. If the government was interested in economic growth, it would scrap the new tax and the existing carbon tax. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the effect of the clean fuel regulations and the existing carbon tax will not help grow the economy but rather will shrink it. That is not what Canadians want from the government's policies. I have heard the Liberals' argument. They whine that the Parliamentary Budget officer was not being fair to them and that the PBO only took the numbers into account when making his calculations. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has complained that the PBO has not taken into account the technological change the clean fuel regulations will help promote. I would love to hear about those changes from the minister. What new technologies have been developed as a direct result of this tax? My guess is the minister does not understand that taxes do not stimulate invention. If he wants new technologies, perhaps his government should try to encourage a climate where businesses and individuals are free to innovate. However, do not ask the PBO to calculate the benefits to the economy of some imaginary technology. That makes no sense. Perhaps in some Liberal fantasyland carbon rebates and carbon taxes balance themselves, just as budgets do. In the real world, these taxes hurt Canadians and provide no benefit to the economy or ecology of the country. Simply put, a tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue imposed on taxpayers in order to fund government spending. That is what the clean fuel regulations are for. They are to fund government spending. They have nothing to do with combatting climate change. Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP allies appear to be blinded by ideology and uncaring as to the needs of Canadians. It is ludicrous to continually raise taxes at a time of high inflation and when grocery prices are soaring and Canadians are finding it difficult to make ends meet. The government is apparently determined to push through this tax no matter who it hurts. The reality is that the Liberal government's policies are fuelling inflation and making people poorer, which is why one in five Canadians is skipping meals and food banks are seeing record demand. The Liberals have no plan that will actually help Canada reduce its carbon footprint. The objective is to fund never-ending Liberal deficits. This scheme will only hurt our economy, discourage investment and increase the cost of everything in a Canadian household. As a Conservative, I oppose this tax and the burden it places on Canadian families. This is not the way to fight climate change. The way to fight climate change is through innovative technologies and harnessing Canadian brainpower, not through increased taxes. A Conservative government will govern with fiscal responsibility, axe these taxes and bring home affordability for Canadians.

1162 words

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

Jun/1/23 3:52:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the next federal election, we are going to see Conservatives in British Columbia saying that they are going to get rid of what they call the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, when in fact in reality there is no federal price on pollution in the province of B.C. They are going to intentionally mislead the residents of B.C. Are the Conservatives going to compensate the people of B.C. if they get rid of the price on pollution in Canada? They are not paying for it right now; it is being done through the provincial government. Are they going to take the money away from the province and give it to the people? How are they going to deal with the sense of equity and fairness among the residents to B.C. if they cancel the national price on pollution?

147 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Jun/1/23 3:53:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we believe that we should not impose things on the provinces, as the government is doing to Alberta specifically. We will not interfere with the way British Columbia is doing its business now. As for the calculation the member is speaking about, reason and logic tell us that if something does not work we should not repeat it. This carbon tax does not work. This carbon tax is not reducing emissions. It has clearly become a tax rather than a climate solution. That is why when we bring our own proposal to Canadians, our own platform, it will be based on logic and on solutions that are going to make a difference, reduce emissions and help reduce the effects of climate change.

124 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/1/23 3:54:00 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, cutting the price on pollution is not a solution that will stop pollution. Oil and gas companies are among the corporations that are showing the greatest profits. Why do the Conservatives prefer stacking the deck for billionaire CEOs over helping working people in Canada?

45 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Jun/1/23 3:54:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the arguments of the NDP always have no relation to the economy or business whatsoever. What we are proposing here today is to get this tax out of the way and save Canadians money and make their life much easier. That is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan when they tax people to make them change behaviour, the way the current government is doing. While that is not doing the job and while this is not really helping to reduce emissions, we have to stop and think again, based on reason and based on logic. When we think that way, we can make a difference; otherwise, we are just having an argument that leads nowhere.

121 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/1/23 3:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting to ask a question, but I have one all the same. My colleague is complaining about the fact that there are regulations on clean fuels. Here, he seems to take offence at the fact that a producer who does not comply with the regulations will be taxed. When I speed or fail to obey the law, I get a ticket. What should be done with producers who breach the standards? Do we give them a pat on the back and tell them to do better next time, or do we tax them?

99 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Jun/1/23 3:55:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it does not seem that Quebec has this problem to begin with, so I am not sure where the Bloc Québécois is coming from on this specific point. I am not suggesting, and I have not suggested ever, that we should really allow corporations or anyone to do whatever they want. We have to work with everyone. That is why I spoke about technologies. That is why I spoke about innovation. Those are going to be done only with businesses that they know better and with us, to make sure we remove any red tape and the gatekeepers from their way so they can do their job. At the end of the day, we are all Canadians and we all have to work with each other to achieve a worthy goal.

137 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 204