SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 257 - Nov/28/23

Nov/28/23 1:06:13 p.m.
Watch

That is debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

18 words

Nov/28/23 1:06:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not that I am always opposed to the member for Winnipeg North, but I think it is inappropriate for him to claim to know what another colleague is going to speak of in the future. Maybe he has a Ouija board on his desk. To contradict my Conservative colleague, it is not about the carbon tax. It is about the instruction to the unelected, unaccountable Senate, which is full of bagmen and friends.

77 words

Winnipeg

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/28/23 1:06:41 p.m.
Watch

I always question whether I should actually listen to some of these points of order. These are all debate. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

26 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/28/23 1:06:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all my colleagues in the House for their points of order. Obviously, we are here to learn from each other, make legislation better, make sure we represent our constituents and make this country not only the best place to live today but the best place for our children to grow up tomorrow and in future years. I will say that the agriculture sector here in Canada is key to the future of our country. Food security and food affordability are paramount issues. We always need to support not only our farmers but also our agriculture sector, along the entire continuum. My riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge is a food cluster and food processing centre. I have great relationships with the folks down in Leamington and Windsor, as well as the greenhouse growers in the Holland Marsh. I know this sector well. Our government will be there today and tomorrow for the agri-food sector and along the entire continuum. I look forward to some very learned questions and comments from all sides of the aisle today.

183 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Nov/28/23 1:07:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's whole speech. He did not mention Bill C-234 or the Senate at all. Very simply, over the last week, how many Liberal-appointed senators did the environment minister call to try to bully them and convince them to vote against this bill?

52 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/28/23 1:08:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, whose senators still caucus with that party, there are no senators who caucus with the duly elected members of Parliament who represent Liberal ridings—

40 words

Caucus

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/28/23 1:08:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe my colleague did not hear me. I said “Liberal-appointed senators”, because the Prime Minister is a Liberal and he did appoint these senators. Therefore, there are Liberal-appointed senators.

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/28/23 1:08:54 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

20 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/28/23 1:08:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, whether it is a point of order or a point of debate, I think that is something that is always good to clarify. With regard to the senators that have been appointed, there is a process that all senators have to do. Here in Ontario, there are members appointed by the Conservative provincial government, which appoints members to put forward names for the Senate process, along with federal representatives. They do it together in collaboration. That list goes forward as an independent process that happens here in the province of Ontario. I know independence is a foreign word to my opposition friends and colleagues, but independence it is. The Senate is a place for sober second thought. It is doing its job. It should do it judiciously and diligently and move forward.

134 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/28/23 1:09:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I too was disappointed that, in the whole speech, we did not hear reference to the bill that the motion we are debating today actually talks about. I was also frustrated on the opening day of debate on anti-scab legislation, when the Conservative opening speeches did not mention it at all. Why did the member adopt the Conservative strategy of refusing to speak to the business of the day when it is politically inconvenient for him? Will he release the Liberal-Conservative coalition tactic book?

88 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/28/23 1:10:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I need to review the tape on that question. Our government will always work in the best interest of Canadians and for the residents who sent us here. It is a privilege and an honour to be in the House. With reference to the legislation on replacement workers, that is something we need to get done. On making all sectors of the economy more competitive, with more choice, lower prices and higher incomes for our farmers and our workers, that is something we are doing. We have been delivering for Canadians since day one, since 2015. We will continue to do so. I have yet to see an idea on the economic front by the official opposition, whether it is the economy, the environment, health care or any sector of the economy that impacts Canadians.

139 words

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

Nov/28/23 1:11:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in a very real way, it is about the price on pollution. The Conservative Party, under the current leadership, is so anti-price on pollution that it even voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Given his highlighting of the importance of the Canadian economy, could my colleague provide his thoughts on that?

56 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/28/23 1:11:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as someone who believes in free trade and trade agreements, on principle, I think we need to support trade agreements. It may be CETA, CUSMA, CPTPP, the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which was negotiated by the other side, if I remember correctly, or the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Whether members agree or disagree on minor details within the agreement, at this time, when Russia has invaded Ukraine, it is a moral imperative that every single person in this House votes, and in the past tense, should have voted for that agreement, fait accompli. There is no argument on that front. It is silly to me. There are Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines fighting for freedom and democracy. Why is there a debate in the House over whether we should support a free trade agreement? It is a moral imperative for us as MPs and as a democratic country to stand with democracies all over the world, including Ukraine. It is a shame that some members in the House did not do that. They should answer to their constituents for that.

185 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Nov/28/23 1:13:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as someone who is proud of my Ukrainian heritage, I am disgusted by that tirade from the member. He is sitting here, defending putting more taxes on our farmers and creating more food insecurity at a time when we have record numbers of people lining up at food banks across this country. Does the member not realize that the food insecurity he is creating here in Canada is the very same food insecurity that he is aligned with, with Putin in Ukraine?

84 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/28/23 1:13:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for this member of Parliament. I know he is proud of his heritage. I know he supports Ukraine in its fight against Putin with every inch and every ounce of his body. I will say that. I will take the high road. I will leave it at that. What I will say on food security and food affordability is that we know it is an issue. Our farmers are on the front line, and they are being impacted by climate change, something that folks should think about when we adopt policies.

98 words

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.)

Nov/28/23 1:14:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, as the opposition is aware, Canadians across the country are facing more and more dramatic impacts from climate change, and farmers are on the front line of all the challenges. They deal with droughts, intense rainfalls, flooding and wildfires, which is very evident in my home province of British Columbia. At the same time, Canadians are struggling with sharp increases in the cost of living across the board, and they have charged us all with taking serious action on both of these issues. I am here today to say that we can take and are taking action on both of these challenges. As we know, our government has put in place a comprehensive emissions reduction plan, the most comprehensive national climate plan ever implemented. I can say that every measure in this plan is designed with the following goals in mind: reducing carbon pollution to stop climate change, growing our economy and positioning Canada to be a leader on the clean technologies of the near future, as well as keeping life affordable for all Canadians. A recent example of this is the new support we have put in place for moving from highly polluting oil heating to clean and efficient cold climate-adapted heat pumps, as well as the many other programs we already have in place. These are exciting programs that are making a real difference for households across the country, particularly low- and medium-income households. I would like to take a few minutes to focus on carbon pollution pricing and how it has been systematically designed to keep life affordable for Canadians. Putting a price on carbon pollution has been a pillar of our climate policy since 2019. It sends a signal across the market that gives flexibility for households, businesses and organizations to choose when and how they will reduce pollution. This flexibility is the key to how pricing seeks out the lowest-cost, most effective ways to reduce pollution. It takes advantage of the collective intelligence of Canadians and Canadian businesses, which make thousands of individual decisions each day, based on the information that only they may have about the costs and benefits involved in their specific cases. That is the power of market-based policies, and that is why economists across the world agree that carbon pollution pricing is smart, critical and a good policy. It is one of the most effective and lowest-cost tools we have to reduce emissions. It is also a policy, as has been said before, that has been designed from the ground up to protect our most vulnerable households. We take every dollar paid on pollution and return it to Canadians in the province or territory in which it was collected. Where the federal fuel charge is in place and the federal government returns the proceeds directly, we return about 90% to households via quarterly climate action incentive payments. This is done in such provinces as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador. Because the climate action incentive is a flat amount based on the number of people in a household, these payments do not affect the powerful incentive of carbon pricing to encourage Canadians to choose cleaner alternatives. However, the payments protect the affordability of daily life. More than eight out of 10 households get back more than they pay, on average, and lower-income households benefit even more. Where proceeds go back to the governments, such as in Yukon and Nunavut, they have their own programs that use the proceeds to protect against affordability impacts. We have demonstrated that we can take action on climate change and help keep life affordable. Our approach also takes the realities of rural living into account. Every rural and remote resident gets a 10% top-up to their climate action incentive payment, and now we have announced this will double, to become a 20% top-up. The top-up makes sure that affordability is protected for rural households, which often face higher energy and transportation costs and may have fewer options to reduce their emissions in the short term. Doubling this top-up will protect those households even more. Our government is very concerned about the impact of increased energy costs on household budgets, and we see how more households are struggling. However, as I hope I have made clear, putting a price on pollution is not what is causing the strain on household budgets. In fact, it can be part of the solution to this challenge. The climate action incentive payments actually mean there is less stress, rather than more, on lower- and medium-income households, since so many households get back more than what they pay at the pump or on gas bills. When we stack the carbon price paid up against those four quarterly payments, people come out ahead. For example, a family of four will receive $986 this fiscal year in Ontario and $1,544 in Alberta, and rural households in each case will receive an additional 10%. Those payments happen ahead of time so householders will have the money in their accounts before they are paying the carbon price on energy bills. We can address climate change and affordability using the same well-designed policy. I am sometimes asked how this works. If we collect the carbon price and then return all of the money back to households, how does it help us reduce pollution? The key is the way we return the proceeds. Because the payment is the same for all households, Canadians still get a benefit from reducing pollution. For example, after choosing cleaner vehicles, switching to a heat pump to heat their home or insulating their home, they would get the same payment regardless and come out ahead. Canadian farmers are on the front lines of the fight against climate change and play a key role in the solutions. While Bill C-234's intent of supporting farmers in an increasingly uncertain landscape is laudable, the changes proposed are misguided. Our carbon-pricing system is already designed specifically with the competitiveness of farmers in mind. The vast majority of emissions on farms are not priced. This includes emissions from livestock, which are the majority of carbon pollution from the sector. Gasoline and diesel used in tractors and for farm machinery are also exempted, and greenhouse operators get 80% relief on the natural gas and propane they use for heating. Importantly, we have addressed the concerns raised by the sponsors of Bill C-234 by putting a refundable tax credit in place to address cost impacts of natural gas and propane use by other farmers. Beyond this, farmers can also earn revenue from reducing emissions under a provincial and federal offset system. All of this is before considering the many funding programs also available for farmers who are taking action to reduce emissions. We remain committed to helping our farmers meet the world's need for food while safeguarding resources for future generations. Carbon pricing is an important policy, but it is one of a whole suite of complementary policies we have put in place to address climate change. Some policies deal with specific sources of pollution, such as the historic phase-out of coal-fired power generation. Other policies work to accelerate innovation by funding research and development, and the deployment of new, cleaner technologies. Seizing the opportunity of the clean energy transition and protecting our children and grandchildren against the ravages of climate change requires an all-hands-on-deck approach. These initiatives work hand in hand with our efforts to deal with the affordability crisis. Just like addressing climate change, keeping life affordable means taking comprehensive action. Our affordability plan has given Canadians $12.1 billion in new supports to help make life more affordable. From the Canada workers benefit in 2022 to our increase of the old age security pension, along with support for affordable day care and for lowering the cost of going to the dentist for lower-income households, we are helping Canadians with concrete steps. That is the kind of effective climate policy our government delivers: programs that are designed in lockstep with affordability policy and that support innovation at the same time. This is all within a comprehensive climate plan that is delivering the action Canadians demand.

1392 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Nov/28/23 1:23:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague from British Columbia. York—Simcoe is now classified as being part of Toronto, which is entirely unbelievable. We talk about the Liberals playing games. They have actually played games by changing the CMA census data. Ridings that are supposed to become urban are being kept rural. With respect to the choices for people in York—Simcoe, we do not have subways and we do not have transit. The member from B.C. knows that my riding is rural, being home to the soup and salad bowl of Canada. How does my colleague think it is fair for the riding of York—Simcoe to be looked at as urban, as though it were part of Toronto?

127 words

Mr. Parm Bains

Nov/28/23 1:24:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member enjoyed my speech. I was talking about relief for farmers and all the measures we have already exempted, such as gas and diesel for farm use from pollution pricing, and all the measures we have already taken to help the farming community. Being from British Columbia and my riding of Steveston—Richmond East, I have spoken to farmers, and they want to be a part of the solution. There are blueberry and cranberry farmers whose farms have gone underwater. There is also the impact of drought and all of those other issues that climate change and climate events have brought upon their farms, so they want to be a part of the solution. They believe in this policy.

126 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/28/23 1:25:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have with the Liberals is that they talk about this climate vision, but they have missed every single target they have ever promised. We see the Conservatives, who are dead set against investment in EV technology, ridiculing the investments in the battery plants. However, the Liberals are putting billions into it when they do not have a plan for the supply chain for critical minerals. We have mineral deposits in Thompson, Manitoba, and in northern Ontario that could supply the EV technology that is needed, but without a coherent plan on tax credits, or a coherent plan from this government for an all-of-government approach, we are going to end up seeing the United States using our metals while we import metals from China, the Congo and Indonesia. This has been raised with the finance minister again and again, but we do not see any coherent strategy from the Liberals in comparison to Biden's IRA, which is creating billions in opportunities. Why is the government making promises without having the coherent plan to actually follow through?

183 words

Mr. Parm Bains

Nov/28/23 1:26:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's question, but I am a little confused by the thought of incoherence. If we were to look at our investments in the national supply chain corridor alone, we would be looking at solutions for those issues. I am a little confused by the question.

51 words