44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I come from a family of coal miners, and when the coal transition went down in Alberta, I went out and met with representatives of coal communities. We invited them to Parliament to testify so we could learn lessons, but unfortunately they did not get asked any questions because the Conservatives, as they are doing on everything, were playing procedural games. They were not interested in what those coal miners had to say, so I find it a little rich that my colleague is now defending them today.
In the same way, when we met with energy workers in Alberta, who were talking about the clean energy transition and how they were ready and more than willing to make it happen, Danielle Smith shut that down and shut down $33 billion in clean energy investments in Alberta.
What kind of region chases jobs out of its area? What kind of region tells the world that it is not open for business because it is ideological? It is a region represented by Conservatives.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I go door knocking in my riding quite a bit and run into former co-workers, retired co-workers and people who used to work in the industry all the time. I can say that not a single one of them is proud of what happened under the NDP-Liberal government. Not a single one of them is satisfied with how it went down. They are not satisfied with the jobs and retraining. Frankly, even though the government pledged that it would spend $100 million to support these communities, the government has never reached that target. It betrayed our communities.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, touting oil is not okay.
Since the first COP I attended, the 2015 event in Paris, I have heard people everywhere talking about just transition. That is the term that is being used internationally.
Does my colleague understand why the legislation does not use that term? Is it because someone is afraid of possible puns involving the Prime Minister's first name?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that ever since oil was discovered in Alberta back in 1949, we have had central governments in this country try to control it. No other region in this country has had a federal government seek to control its destiny more than western Canada given its oil resources.
Quebeckers stand up for their resources, and I applaud them for that. We should all stand up for our resources. I will not apologize for standing up for our strong oil and gas sector, a sector that is investing in clean energy, renewable energy and carbon capture. I see it in my riding, which is working to sequester CO2 emissions today and is doing a great job. It is a sustainable industry. Let us support it.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau found today that after eight years, the power of corporate oligopolistic giants is growing at the expense of Canadians. It is in a report, which said:
Concentration rose in the most concentrated industries, and the number of highly concentrated industries increased;
The largest firms in industries are being less and less challenged by their smaller [firms];
Fewer firms have entered industries overall, suggesting many industries have become less dynamic....
This has—
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 4:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is all fascinating, and the member can ask about it tomorrow, but we are debating Bill C-50 and there is absolutely nothing about it in the question.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I will allow the hon. leader of the official opposition to complete the question.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is for the member who intervened, who does not live in his own riding and has forgotten about the people in Timmins.
Finally, the report states that the consequence of this is that profits and markups are up while Canadian competition is down.
These are the findings of the Competition Bureau's report today. They are part of the reason we have smaller paycheques and higher prices.
Why is the government siding with big, powerful, protected corporate oligarchs rather than with Canadian consumers and workers?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government has always sided with big businesses. It has always sided with the oligopolies, whether it is the grocery chains, the big banks or the big railway companies, which are hurting western farmers who are just trying to get their grain to market. The Liberal power structure that has existed in this country has always been backed by big business. It is going to take a Conservative government, under a strong Conservative leader, to break the monopolies, bring true competition to Canada and open up this country for real economic growth.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments recently as he talked about the transition to renewable and clean jobs. Are we to believe that the reason the Premier of Alberta put a moratorium on renewable energy projects is that they were so wildly unpopular in Alberta? Is that what we are to believe?
Would it not be the case that there were so many projects that the premier became afraid that they were—
Hon. Pierre Poilievre: The same policies doubled energy prices.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask a question. The Leader of the Opposition is providing his own MP with the answer. I cannot even hear myself, as he is saying it so loud.
Would it be possible to repeat that, or—
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 4:13:01 p.m.
- Watch
I will ask the hon. member to answer the question because we are a little over time.
The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member was part of a government in the province of Ontario that oversaw a doubling of power prices because of its flawed policies. He was a part of that government and —
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 4:13:22 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have never been elected to a provincial legislature. I do not know what the member is talking about. He is wildly incorrect, but he can please tell us more.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the member was a very strong supporter of the previous Ontario government, which did double power prices in the province of Ontario.
The government likes to talk about the environment, but we need to ensure that projects do not harm our landscapes and do not harm our waterways. I think we need to look strongly at these things, ensure we take a holistic look at the environment and support keeping the integrity of our environment strong.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to take part in this debate since it is an essential debate for the future of Canada and, let us be honest, for the future of the planet. We are talking here about the vision, the perspective we have when it comes to Canada's natural resources given the challenges we are facing with climate change, which is real.
First, let us begin by defining what is at stake. Climate change is real. Humans are contributing to it. Humans therefore need to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, ultimately, reducing pollution. Over the eight years that this government has been here, what is Canada's record?
Using a mathematical and scientific process, the United Nations, or UN, which is not just any old organization, analyzed 63 countries around the world to see which nations were most effective at countering the effects of climate change. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. That is not our statistic. It did not come from overly conservative observers. It did not come from climate deniers. No, it came from people in the UN. They handed out their report card: After eight years of the Liberal government, Canada is ranked 58 out of 63 when it comes to effectively fighting climate change.
Will people be surprised by this disappointing result given that the government had pumped itself up and bragged about their ambitious targets?
“Canada is back.” That is exactly what the Prime Minister said eight years ago in Paris. People all around the world applauded that Canada was back. However, after eight years, Canada is way back, at number 58 out of 63. That is the result of policies based on ideology, not on pragmatism and practice.
That is why, sadly, Bill C‑50 follows once again in the same Liberal tradition that this government is imposing on Canadians. In other words, the Liberals think that they are the only ones who know what to do, that they will tax everyone and that is going to reduce emissions.
After eight years, that is not what happened. This government has never met its targets. The rare times when there were reductions was, unfortunately, during the pandemic. If the Liberals' game plan is to bring Canada back there and shut down the economy for a few months, that is not exactly the best thing to do. We can all agree.
It is obvious that introducing carbon taxes is not working. That is the reality. Why is that not working? Because we would need all 195 countries in the world to have carbon pricing systems that were equivalent everywhere, with the same requirements everywhere and the same challenges everywhere The problem, however, is that the big polluters, the big emitters, starting with our biggest neighbour, do not subscribe to this system. This is a prime example of how important geography can be. The United States of America is our main neighbour, our main economic partner and our main competitor. Here in Canada, we are always quick and proud to lecture those around us. We tax people. We tax businesses. We tax wealth creators. We tax job creators. As a result, people go elsewhere instead of investing here. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. It is better to go elsewhere. That is the problem with this dogmatic approach.
Our approach is much more concrete, pragmatic and effective. It will deliver tangible results. On September 2, 2,500 Conservative supporters from across Canada gathered in Quebec City for our national convention. We had not had this type of event in five years. We were all under the same roof. The event took place on the evening of September 2 in Quebec City. I am from Quebec City. I am very proud to say that.
On September 2, there was a milestone speech by the future prime minister of Canada, the hon. member for Carleton. He is the leader of the official opposition today, but he will be the next prime minister. It was a milestone speech, the Quebec speech. It framed where we want to go with the next Conservative government, and when he talked about climate change, the leader was crystal clear that the real impact of climate change has to be addressed. That is what he said. This is why we recognize it, but we want to address it with pragmatism, not ideology.
The speech given in Quebec City is a big part of the history of Canadian politics and it will make its mark like many other important speeches in our history. That is why it will be remembered as the vision that the party had when Canadians gave us the honour of putting their trust in us to form the next government.
What was said in that speech?
The first pillar is that climate change is having a real impact and that it must be addressed. We need pragmatic measures to deal with climate change. Rather than imposing taxes, we are going to encourage people, through tax incentives, to invest in new technologies, research and development and measures that can be immediately implemented to reduce pollution. That is the objective. It is all well and good to brag about lofty principles and say that we are going to reduce emissions by 2.3% compared to what happened in 1991 because it was different in 1996, and so on. That is all theoretical. The reality is that there is pollution and we want to reduce pollution.
When we talk about reducing pollution, it is a never-ending story. We hear that we need to reduce, reduce and reduce. If we can reduce by 20% this year, then great and congratulations. What will be done on January 1 to continue to reduce pollution and emissions? Our plan is based on incentives in research and development to help reduce pollution. This is the first pillar.
The second pillar is to give the green light to green energy. People have projects ready to go right now. They want to invest in green energies and they want to do research and development, but there is too much red tape. We need to act efficiently. I would like to provide a very specific example. Quebec is currently engaged in a lively debate about the future of hydroelectricity. Should we relive the great 1950s, when we gave the green light to so many hydroelectric projects in Quebec, or should we do things differently? This is an ongoing debate. Does everyone know that, through Bill C‑69, the federal government has given itself the right to veto hydroelectric projects in Quebec? This is slowing thing down.
We want to do the opposite and speed up the process of giving people greater access to green energy. When I say “green energy”, I am talking about hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, as well as nuclear energy. These are all avenues that we need to explore further with new technology to make them more efficient and more accessible to Canadians. That is where it can happen.
The third pillar is that we must be proud to be Canadian, proud of our know-how, our energy and our natural resources. Yes, Canada is rich in intelligence. Yes, Canada is rich when it comes to researchers, natural resources and energy. Yes, as Canadians, we must prioritize these Canadian assets and export this know-how. We have extraordinary know-how in hydroelectricity; we are the best in the world. We should be exporting that know-how.
The same thing can be said of natural resources. There is a lot of talk about the electrification of transport. I, for one, am a supporter and I believe in the future of electric cars to combat the greenhouse effect. However, this requires lithium. We have lithium in Canada. Why is it taking years to get shovels in the ground? We need to speed things up.
That is why we should be proud of who we are. That is why we need to green-light green energy. That is why we need tax incentives to accelerate research and development. Concrete, realistic, responsible, pragmatic measures will enable us to fight the harmful impacts of climate change. For the past eight years, the Liberals have opted for their carbon tax and the second tax that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will cost over 20 cents a litre, or 16 cents plus tax. We know the Bloc Québécois had two opportunities to say no to the first carbon tax and the second one. Twice, the Bloc Québécois lent its full support and voted with the Liberal government to keep both taxes.
That is not the approach we recommend. We believe that Canadian know-how, smarts and natural resources are the best way to face the challenge of climate change.
1500 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech, he talked about pragmatic solutions. Maybe there was a loss in translation with the word “pragmatic”. “Pragmatic” means dealing with something realistically. All that he is promising is that they will develop things in the future. They do not have anything right now. They will renounce the things that work, renounce the things that are accepted by the global community as working, that make us a leader on this file. What he is offering is magic beans, that, maybe, in the future, someday, we will have something, maybe, possibly, maybe.
That is not pragmatic by any definition.
I was wondering if the hon. member could get up and just recognize that they do not have anything at all to offer except denial of climate change.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, hopefully, in the 30s, when Canadians created penicillin, this member was not there to say that it is does not exist and that it will never exist.
I believe in Canadian knowledge. I believe in Canadian research. I believe in Canadian scientific people.
He talked about the global observation. May I remind him that the global observation from the United Nations concluded that after eight years of this government, Canada is number 58 out of 63.
Shame on them.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
