44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/7/23 7:02:15 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:02:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after eight years, this tired NDP-Liberal government has become increasingly desperate. The Prime Minister has come to resemble one of those wacky, waving, inflatable tube guys outside car dealerships. His hands flail about as the political winds push him around randomly.
Year after year, the Prime Minister has claimed that if he did not punish low-income Canadians with higher energy prices, it would lead to the extinction of the human race. In reality, his regressive carbon tax has become a meteor headed for the Liberal Party. That is the only reasonable explanation Canadians can take away from the decision to cut the carbon tax on home heating oil. He only cares about the survival of the Liberal Party.
Canadians can see through the Liberal talking points and simplistic slogans. They know the Prime Minister is being inauthentic when he talks about affordability. Even the Liberals know it. Why else would the former parliamentary secretary provide fake numbers to this House about the cost of the Prime Minister's third family vacation in a year?
What is even more remarkable is that the Liberals knew what the impact of bringing in the carbon tax and carbon tax 2 would mean for Canadians struggling to put food on the table. They knew it and they did it anyhow. These Liberal ministers knew it would hurt Atlantic Canadians. They spelled it out in black and white. I know because I quoted it back to them.
This is what I said during an adjournment debate one year ago
The Liberals' new fuel standards regulations clearly state that the cost will be borne disproportionately by rural Atlantic Canadians, yet Liberals claim that nobody uses home heating oil any more. The Liberals are clearly gaslighting Atlantic Canadians, then charging them a carbon tax on that same gas.
Before any of the Liberals get up to spread more misinformation, I challenge them to read their own regulatory analysis. This is not Conservatives saying it, and it is not the Parliamentary Budget Officer. These are the Liberal government's own words. It said:
It is estimated that provinces in Atlantic Canada would be more negatively affected by the proposed Regulations. This is largely because the Atlantic Provinces use more [light fuel oil] for home heating than other provinces.
It later said:
This may be most acute for seniors living in the Atlantic provinces, where they account for a higher share of the total population compared to other Canadian provinces and are also more likely to experience some of the highest energy expenditures in Canada proportional to income.
The NDP-Liberal government knew the second carbon tax would hammer Atlantic Canada. The radical socialist environment minister knew his policy would hurt seniors on fixed incomes. He knew his policy would hurt lower-income Canadians. He knew it and he did it anyway. What did he do when the price of energy shot up in Atlantic Canada this summer? He claimed that this was all the fault of the companies and not his carbon tax and clean fuel regulations. It is another example of Liberal gaslighting, except this time it was the Liberal caucus who were taken for a ride.
The environment minister has known for years that his energy regulations would hammer Atlantic Canadians. He knew the costs would be passed onto consumers. He knew it and he pushed them through anyhow.
The socialist environment minister has devoted his entire life to putting his radical vision for the environment ahead of people. At least he is honest about it. What excuse do the Liberal caucus and the parliamentary secretary have for adopting this regressive policy?
610 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:06:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not even know where to start with the only MP who voted against the Paris Agreement. She always has more climate denial and conspiracy theories in this House than I can handle.
I would remind the members opposite that they all ran on a similar plan in 2021 to price carbon. In fact, the Tories reprimanded the member of the Conservative caucus over her comments on climate change. The Conservative Party told the media that the member was told to take down videos from her YouTube channel that were spouting those conspiracy theories—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:06:55 p.m.
- Watch
Order. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask her question. She is going to have an opportunity to respond. I would ask her to wait until then.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member continues to yell that it is a big conspiracy and it is censorship to tell her to take those videos down. I did not tell her to take those videos down. The Conservative Party told her to take her videos down because they were full of nonsense, misinformation and conspiracy theories about climate lockdowns and about governments that were going to put into place certain restrictions, like those imposed by COVID-19.
It is like the member gets all of her news from the National Enquirer and brings it into this House to spread misinformation and disinformation throughout her riding. It is extremely disappointing. However, this is not the first time we have heard blatant climate denial from the member. I hope for the sake of her caucus that they ask her, as they did in 2021, when they all ran on a plan to price carbon, to maybe tone the rhetoric, conspiracy theories and climate denial a bit, because as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has stated, no party without a viable climate plan to reduce emissions is ever going to get elected. I could not agree more.
Like the member opposite, a lot of my community members use home heating oil in order to heat their homes. It is akin to using coal. These products were used in the 1800s to heat homes, and we can do a lot better in 2023. Rural Ontarians will hopefully get a deal from Premier Ford whereby we can help subsidize their home heating through a heat pump, which is an efficient way to heat a home. It is an effective way to heat a home. It also drastically reduces emissions.
The members opposite continue to yell at me that I do not work in the cold, but it is not true. It gets cold where I live, and I use a heat pump that works just fine. There are also cold-adjusted ones that use a mix of various technologies, which I would say is the only word the Conservatives have used to describe their climate policy. They say they are just going to use technology to drive down all emissions, and they are going to meet some fictitious target with the kind of technology we have invested in, like carbon capture, use and storage.
The Conservatives do not have a plan to fight climate change. They have absolutely no leadership in their party. They have stopped talking about climate change altogether, and it is really disappointing.
As to affordability, the vast majority of those living in provinces like Ontario, where the member and I are both from, who go about their lives and pay the price on pollution receive a rebate. I would encourage anybody who is curious about that rebate to check their bank statement from October 13. They will see one of their four quarterly amounts, with up to $244 for a family of four, which is $946, if my math is correct. That is part of the rebate program.
The Conservatives will never talk about it, because they do not want to accept that our program, which is a consumer-based revenue-neutral program, is better than theirs. If members recall, in their 2021 election platform, they had some sort of Zellers-style catalogue, and people could choose something from it, like a bike or another green product. That would not work and that is why they did not win that election. As the member for—
586 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:10:26 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, none of my YouTube videos were taken down. That is more misinformation from the Liberals.
After eight years, Canadians know the truth. Higher prices are the official government policy for the NDP-Liberal government. The goal of the carbon tax is to make energy unaffordable.
The environment minister says they have to make energy more expensive so they can reach net zero by 2050. It is the same minister who says that we need a mandatory target of cutting 30% of nitrogen emissions from fertilizer by 2030. It is the same minister who worked with the Communists to control China by setting a land grab target of 30% by 2030. It is the same minister who set an electric vehicle sales target of 30% by 2030.
He wants energy to be more expensive. He wants food to be more expensive. He wants land to be more expensive. He wants cars to be more expensive. The Prime Minister who appointed the Liberal minister is just not worth the cost.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:11:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this denial is beyond just climate change denial. The member was indeed instructed to take videos off of her YouTube feed, and she did take those videos down. There was one, a particularly disgusting video the member put up, that included an image of the Prime Minister with a noose around his neck.
The member opposite can continue to yell and bring into the House news that is not even fit for the National Enquirer. It is a challenge that we all have to face in this place, that some people are elected on the basis of their misinformation, disinformation and tabloid-style campaigns.
I was heartened to see that Erin O'Toole, in the last election campaign, told his Conservative caucus that, if they do not get on board with fighting climate change, they are not welcome in their caucus. I guess they showed him because, as soon as they did not get elected, they showed somebody who is willing to talk about climate change the door.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:12:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in and try to get some answers for the question I asked the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources last week. I am happy that the parliamentary secretary is here because he has said a few things tonight that I would really like to delve into. We will do just the facts if he is okay with that, and if he can manage to answer some things straightforwardly.
One is that they have always said that the carbon tax, after eight long years of this NDP-Liberal government, was an environmental plan. They have also said that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. They have also said that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is not true. He said that 60% of Canadians get less money back after they pay the carbon tax. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said about their carbon tax plan.
If the carbon tax was revenue-neutral and was an environmental plan, why was there the flip-flop last week? Why do they now say that they had to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax as an affordability measure?
Both of those statements cannot be true. It is impossible. The carbon tax cannot be revenue-neutral and eight of out of 10 Canadians, as they falsely claim, get more money back if they have to flip-flop with what they say is a nationwide program to say, with their NDP colleagues, that they need to do this as an affordability measure. I would love to hear from the parliamentary secretary if he can square the circle that this is an affordability measure now. It is actually impossible. Everyone across Canada knows this, and 3% of Canadians now get an exemption from the carbon tax, while 97% do not.
They have said, all week, that this is a nationwide exemption. It is not true. Most of these exemptions are where the Prime Minister was getting decimated in the polls, in Atlantic Canada, and the Liberals are desperate to stop the bleeding in their polling numbers. This flip-flop had nothing to do with environmental science and everything to do with political science. I am excited to hear the answers to a few of these questions.
While I am on the topic, he is talking about the carbon tax being an environmental policy, which we all know is not true, as it is a tax policy, because, today, the environment commissioner said that, with their carbon tax as their flagship policy, they will not meet one environmental target they have made. They will not make their emissions target by 2030.
His good friend, the member for Whitby, said that Canadians will feel pain because of this carbon tax. They were exactly right. They felt the pain with zero environmental gain, and two million people in this country line up at a food bank every month. That is their record. I would love to see how the carbon tax can be an environmental plan when it is actually a tax plan, which is revenue-neutral, but they had to flip-flop to make sure it is now an affordability measure. Could he please explain that to Canadians because I cannot?
554 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:16:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can tell that the member opposite cannot explain to his constituents concepts like a market-based instrument or how a revenue-neutral carbon pricing scheme works, because he cannot explain it in the House, and he could not explain it at the doors in 2021 when he ran for the Conservative Party. Therefore, allow me to.
Yes, indeed, our carbon pricing plan is revenue-neutral. That means that all of the money that comes in from the carbon tax, as the member would like to call it, goes back to families in our communities. In fact, a family of four in Saskatchewan will receive $1,360. That is a number they will not see in an email that the member has sent to a constituent. He will not remind them that it is a revenue-neutral program. He will not say that they are actually getting a refund or a rebate every single year, and that it is tax-free.
The reason that the price is on pollution is that Saskatchewan, like some other provinces, continues to use coal to generate all of its electricity. Therefore, even if someone is using an electric car or a heat pump, unfortunately a lot of their electricity is still coming from coal. In 2005, Ontario also generated a lot of electricity using coal, and, like Saskatchewan, it had a lot of smog days. There are smog days in Saskatchewan now, and a lot of it has to do with burning coal. Coal is bad for the environment and it is bad for our health.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
269 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:17:42 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind members that if they do not have the floor, they need to listen. If they have anything to say, unfortunately they are not going to be able to participate, except for the hon. member who asked the question, who will have the floor. I ask members to please be respectful.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will say it again: The rebate of $1,360 is what families of four in Saskatchewan receive through the climate action rebate.
The member might wave his hands and say that is just hogwash. Two members from Saskatchewan are now waving their hands at me as if $1,360 were irrelevant to their constituents. I think it actually is quite relevant and it is quite a lot of money, money that will be well spent by families who need it. Despite the fact that those colleagues all ran on a similar plan to price carbon in 2021, they do not want anybody to know that because they want families to feel like they have always been against environmental policies to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to fight climate change. However, since 2015, the Liberal Party and the government have been there for Canadians. We have been relentless in our pursuit of solutions to make life more affordable for families in our country, and we are also doing that while fighting climate change.
As the commissioner said, the fight on climate change needs more ambition; it needs stronger targets and more action. That is what we are doing. We are redoubling our efforts to fight climate change and lower our emissions in Canada, while the Conservatives have zero ambition, zero targets and no plan. I am curious to know from the member what his plan to fight climate change might be. I have never actually heard the member say “climate change”, so I would encourage him to talk about climate change a bit in this debate and tell Canadians and people in his riding what his plan is to fight it.
In a year when wildfires burned out of control, hundreds of thousands of Canadians were forced out of their homes and it has been the hottest year ever on record, inaction is certainly not an option for our government. We need to move faster. We need to be more ambitious in fighting climate change. There is just no way around it. We have to take action now to fight climate change. Our pollution pricing system is one of the best ways to do so and is a component of any serious plan to fight climate change, as Erin O'Toole put in the Conservatives' plan to fight climate change in 2021.
With regard to our decision for a temporary pause, I will come back in the rebuttal.
414 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:20:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member brought up the rebate. I talk about our climate policies all the time because in Saskatchewan, we have lowered our per capita emissions more than any other province in Canada has over the last five years, with carbon capture and sequestration and new technologies. The new technologies in farming have sequestered more carbon, and we are doing a wonderful job of ensuring that we have climate sustainability in the province of Saskatchewan. With respect to a smog day in Saskatchewan, that is how out of touch the member is. What a ridiculous comment that is. We are the land of blue skies, and we have a beautiful province.
I would just like to say that the member is so incompetent. He says that people get $1,200 back, but with carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, the people of Saskatchewan pay $2,600 a year in carbon tax. Therefore, if he can tell me how $1,200 is more than $2,600, I would love it. I would love it if he could tell me how that math works out, but he is not very good at telling the truth in the chamber.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:21:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not want to avoid answering the question, but the member just called into question whether or not I can be honest in this chamber, and I think that goes against parliamentary procedure. That was unparliamentary language, and I would ask him to stand and apologize.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:21:51 p.m.
- Watch
Hon. members have to be extremely careful in how they describe someone or indicate whether someone is telling the truth.
I will give the hon. member an opportunity to withdraw his statement.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:22:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize for saying that he cannot figure out math or for being unable to square the circle of the carbon tax—
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:22:22 p.m.
- Watch
That is not an apology. The hon. member knows full well that we have to be very careful with some of the language we use in the House. I would ask the him whether or not he wants to apologize for saying the member is dishonest.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:22:39 p.m.
- Watch
I apologize for the comments I made, Madam Speaker.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:22:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, our government has been there to support Canadians. I want to point out that when colleagues opposite suggest certain people are paying more for certain things, it really does a disservice to the debate and the quality of the conversations we have in this House.
I want to point out that the quintile of Canadians who might receive less back in the climate action incentive than they pay are the wealthiest Canadians. They are the top quintile of earners. It just goes to show that the Conservatives are always here to fight for millionaires and big oil. When it comes to fighting for affordability or the middle class, they are literally nowhere to be seen.
Since I am by myself in the chamber, I will finish there.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:23:38 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member cannot say whether there are or are not members in the chamber.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:23 p.m.)
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
