44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 28, 2023 10:00AM
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, part of the debate here today on the motion at hand is about the Conservatives trying to have the House dictate to the Senate what bills it should pass. Bill C-48 is a bill that is incredibly important to provinces and territories, including B.C. The Conservatives have not been too concerned about it in the Senate, shown by the fact that it has taken them two months to get through it.
Could my hon. colleague speak to the fact that Conservative games in the Senate are stopping the passage of crucial legislation that provinces, such as British Columbia, have asked our government to implement?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 1:27:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question.
I think that every member in the House, across the aisle, are getting a little tired of some of the procedural games that are taking place not only here in this House but also in our committees. If we look at the collaboration needed to move this country forward, we are not really seeing these things being met when it comes to the work that we are expected to do by our constituents, which we need to take into consideration.
I welcome collaboration when I do my work. It is expected of me when I am working with all levels of government, including with members of the Province of British Columbia and the City of Richmond. I think we need to get on with it.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption for heating buildings, grain drying and irrigation on farms. We are also talking about the role of the Senate in the parliamentary democracy of a two-house system.
My civics is a little rusty, but I do remember that the Senate does not have any ability for taxation because they are unelected. I cannot remember when the Senate has held up a taxation bill. My colleague from B.C. brought up a few bills, but I do not believe they were taxation bills.
First and foremost, we have to realize that what the Senate is doing right now is not within its purview. The Senate has no power of taxation because, as appointed senators, they are not accountable to their constituents. They are not elected every four years. One of the main points of democracy is taxation with representation. The Senate does not have the authority to hold up a taxation bill.
I wanted to get that on the record because the crux of the argument today is whether the Senate is doing what it is allowed to do. The other discussion is on how important Bill C-234 is and how quickly should we pass it.
My colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, has put on the record that he is the Conservative member who brought forward the private member's bill. I am very proud I was on the agriculture committee that talked about this bill, and we had the support of the committee to pass it on to the House for third reading.
The opposition came together and voted in favour. A majority of members from across the country, along with three Liberals, and I will not forget that, voted to move this bill forward to third reading because they knew it was important to Canadian farmers. That is what this comes down to.
Our leader put it very succinctly. One of his constituents is paying $10,000 a month in carbon tax. How can anyone be expected to run a business when the carbon tax is $10,000 a month? This has to be paid to the federal government on a taxation policy that does not do what it is supposed to do.
I am also very happy to say that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant member for Lethbridge.
Getting back to the $10,000 a month on carbon tax, no business can eat that kind of a bill. When the farmer who produces the food is taxed, and the trucker who ships the food is taxed, every Canadian who goes to the grocery store will be taxed. The fallacy the Liberals and NDP bring forward is that this is a rural and remote issue, hence the carve-out, for political reasons, in the Maritimes.
This is not a rural issue. It is not an urban issue. If people go to the grocery store to buy food for their family, it affects them each and every time. What we are trying to do in the House today is make the upper chamber realize, again, because we have already passed this bill, that this is an important bill to fight the ever-increasing cost of groceries across our country.
I am not sure that has sunk in for some of the members across the aisle. Maybe their chef has not told them that they have to pay extra for the food. Maybe they live in downtown areas and do not go to the grocery store often. I can say that my wife and I have to go grocery shopping, every now and then when I am home in time, and our grocery bills have continued to climb. We have talked to neighbours and friends, and people at the hockey rink, and they are feeling the pinch every day when trying to feed their families. We see mothers adding water to milk to make it go a little farther.
We see two million people in our country using a food bank every month. That is a staggering fact, and they are not just numbers. They are parents, grandparents and children. The majority of them are children. That is not the Canada I grew up in. It is not. It is not the Canada we want to leave for our children. It is something we need to have a very open discussion about.
Our leader, the member for Carleton, made it very clear that in two years we are going to have a carbon tax election. Canadians will be asking whether or not they want our common-sense Conservative approach, which would include axing the tax so people could afford groceries and getting spending under control to lower interest rates so people could afford to buy a home or pay rent.
Rents have doubled over the last long eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. Rents have doubled. Mortgages have doubled. It used to take 25 years to pay off a home in Canada, but now it takes 25 years to afford a down payment on a home in Canada. That has happened all in the last eight years under the Prime Minister and the Liberals' reckless spending.
This is where it comes back to the argument around Bill C-234. It is something that can be done immediately to lower the price of food for Canadians. It is something that can be done to ensure that our producers can continue to produce the world-class foods we have.
When $10,000 is taken out of the pockets of producers, they cannot invest in new farm technologies. They cannot invest in new fertilizer options or new machinery that would lower emissions. What we are doing right now is kneecapping our farmers so they cannot be innovative. It is not a slogan. Technologies over taxes is a way to lower our environmental emissions.
I am so proud to be from Saskatchewan. We have innovative policies in the agriculture sector, but we do not get credit for them. We have crop rotation. We have zero till. We have straight cut combines. We have precision agriculture. For example, when someone is adding fertilizer, it lowers and raises the rates depending on the field moisture. These are innovative technologies that have lowered emissions over the last 20 years. However, for some reason, the government has given no credit to those producers who have adopted this technology. I do not understand why.
The Liberals put a benchmark of 2018 as the year when people get credit for innovative farming practices. Why are we not praising all the Canadian agriculture producers who have being doing it right for the last 15 or 20 years? We can talk about some of the things we have done. The National Cattle Feeders' Association said it very well. It said:
Canada’s feedlot sector embraces innovative practices that support competitiveness and sustainability. To compete in an integrated North American market, cattle feeders carefully manage input costs including feed and fuel.
Feedlots rely on propane and natural gas for essential practices, including on-farm drying, steam flaking and barn heating. These are necessities on a feedlot to make sure they are producing the best opportunities for cattle to grow and have those gains for when they go to plants.
Why are we not promoting what we are doing on an international stage? The Liberals will always say the carbon tax is an environmental policy, not an economic policy. If the Liberals are so concerned about the environment, though they have not reached one target in the last eight years, why are we not taking Canadian agriculture to the world? Why do we go on the world stage, pretend it is a poor cousin and we are embarrassed about our agriculture sector?
Our ag minister should be going around the world saying how good our farming practices are here on Canadian soil, and promote that across the country and across the world. That is what we should be doing on the international stage, but we are not.
I asked the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge about the Liberal-appointed senators, because they are appointed by the Liberal Prime Minister. Why would they not vote in favour of this bill that would see all food prices in Canada lowered? It defies common sense.
When I talk to people in my riding and in my community in Regina, they talk about the cost of living. They talk about choosing between paying the heating bill, because it does get cold in Regina, and paying their mortgage. It is choosing between paying the heating bill or buying groceries they need for their kids to go to school with packed lunches. These are decisions in our country in 2023 that parents should not have to be making.
It is time we put this bill into practice, lower the price of food across our country, and use common-sense principles to bring home lower prices for my home and everyone's home. Let us bring it home for Canadians and pass this bill. Let us call on the senators to make sure it does happen.
1543 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 1:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting. At the beginning of the member's speech, he spoke about the pillars of democracy and what is so important in a democracy.
Is it the Conservative Party's and the Leader of the Opposition's desire that, in their terms, common-sense democracy means that when someone does not agree with another parliamentarian who does not share the same beliefs, it is okay to resort to bullying and aggressive tactics to the point where safety and security have now been an issue for two women in the Senate that the House leader of the opposition specifically targeted?
Are they learning lessons from January 6 in the United States and the MAGA Republicans? Is that how they view democracy in this country?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
