44th Parl. 1st Sess.

December 7, 2023 10:00AM

Dec/7/23 4:20:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope that you are doing well. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, British Columbia. I rise today to speak to a motion moved by the opposition. I like having the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the members of the opposition about their thoughts, their policies and their feelings. First, I feel the need to explain the motion we are discussing. It is the reality. The House is calling on the government to repeal the carbon tax on farmers, first nations and families. I will speak to those three points. I will bring a level of moderation to this conversation. I have heard a whole bunch of stuff here today, and I will give my perspective on the motion and on the question, writ large, about where Canada goes in the days ahead in relation to environmental progress and how we get there. I come into this conversation as someone who believes in the principle of carbon pricing. There is merit to it. Inherently, it is a mechanism that actually allows the private sector to make those decisions. My hon. colleagues across the way in opposition often talk about big government or the idea that they do not like big government, but it seems that, if they do have a climate plan, it would be predicated on big government programs as opposed to letting the private sector decide how to innovate and how to drive emissions down. Of course, that is what we are focused on: driving GHG emissions down. We know the science is clear and that work has to be done. Canada is in a global effort on that front. However, I want to address each of the elements of the motion because the motion, to the Conservatives' credit, is somewhat reasonably put forward in that it is straightforward in what it is asking for. It does not have too much inflammatory language, but it also does not talk about the other types of arguments or the other elements that are at play. For example, let me start with families. We have heard in the House, and we have heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that under the federal backstop, eight out of 10 Canadian families are receiving more money back than what they pay in. The House has heard a number of times this week of a column that was talking about Trevor Tombe, a Calgary economist, who talked about this relating not only to direct but also to indirect costs. That is largely void from the conversation I am hearing from the official opposition about the fact that there even are rebates. I heard a couple of people in the House say that they are taking the money and they do not know what they are doing with it. With all due respect, that is a bit disingenuous. We know exactly what the money is doing. It is revenue neutral to the government and it is being put back. I take no issue if the Conservative Party does not believe in the way that is happening and would like to see adjustments and changes. Very often, we hear the Conservatives just lambasting the idea of any form of carbon pricing, and that is important for us to weigh in on. There are business operators making decisions all across the world right now, including here in Canada, who are relying on the idea that there will be a form of carbon pricing, and they are building their industrial strategies in that way. We have not heard from the Conservatives as to whether they support any form of carbon pricing, nor have we heard what their plan is. Do I think that every member on the opposition bench is a climate denier? No, I do not, but I do worry that the party is not genuine in its interest of tackling the questions of affordability and environment at the same time and the progress we need to make in this country. With respect to families, when the Conservatives are saying they want to cut the federal backstop, they are saying they want to cut money that goes back to lower- and middle-income families at a higher rate than what people pay out, both directly and indirectly. The Conservatives should start becoming clear about what exactly they are saying. They want to take money away from lower- and middle-income Canadians, full stop. The Conservatives often talked about the indirect costs of the carbon price. Yes, there are some indirect costs, and we have to weigh those versus the price signal, which will drive innovation and the economy in this country, the clean tech economy that is there. I have talked about families, so in my time remaining, let me talk about first nations and farmers. There is a mechanism right now under the federal backstop that returns money back to first nations. The Conservatives will quote a judicial decision that some first nations in Ontario have brought forward. They are trying to push for changes and adjustments. We can have that conversation. I have talked to members on our side in the indigenous caucus, and they support a carbon price. They know environmental progress is important. Again, we do not hear the Conservatives stepping up to offer tangible solutions about how they would adjust or change the policies. They are just saying they would scrap everything to do with it without providing any guidance to Canadians about what their actual climate plan is. We have seen the government make adjustments. There are existing reasonable exemptions within the carbon pricing plan across the country. I was pleased to see, just over a month ago, the government make changes that will really matter to rural Canadians across the country. We increased the rural rebate to 20%. This is something that was driven by members in this caucus, who did not come in with the opening premise of saying that we should kill carbon pricing all together, but of letting us adjust it to make sure Canadians in every corner of this country can feel like they are part of the solution on climate. We never heard a single word from the Conservative benches about what that means for their constituents. I again take notice that maybe they do not support this, but what do they support? If they want to be the government in waiting, they better start actually talking about what it is they do support and what they stand for, which I have not heard much of lately other than, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has mentioned, 19 straight opposition day motions that are largely on this topic alone. I do not know what else they have in the tool kit. I guess we will see, but this seems to be a favourite one. On farmers, what the opposition day motion does not mention is that there are existing exemptions for on farm fuels for gasoline and diesel already. They referenced often Bill C-234. This is a bill I supported at second reading and at third reading, and we saw it off to the Senate. I do believe the work the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food did at the House level to examine the question and to have a sunset clause that would reasonably allow some period of time, particularly on the question of grain and vegetable drying, is a reasonable one. It is an extension of the existing exemption that actually makes sense. Some in the House would not agree with me on that principle, and that is fine. We have heard consistently question after question in the House somehow lambasting the government for blocking this in the Senate. Senators would know the government position on it. The government position was to support farmers in different ways, to be able to put different mechanisms back and still keep the price signal. What is not being talked about, or not very often, is that the Senate record shows at least five of the 15 Conservative senators were not in the chamber on the day that amendment was put forward. It was ultimately voted on by 40 to 39. The leader of the official opposition stood in the House for weeks talking about this bill. I am sure the Conservative fundraising emails will not mention that a third of his Senate caucus did not even bother to show up on the day, on their own legislation. That matters. An hon. member: That's not true. Mr. Kody Blois: Is it not true? Senator Michael MacDonald was not there. Senator Boisvenu was not there. Senator Manning was not in the Senate. I could go on. I have them all listed on my phone. Madam Speaker, I hear my Conservative colleague saying that is not true. Well, it is true. The leader of the official opposition is the only party leader in the House of Commons who is still a leader for certain senators in the Senate, and if he cannot get his members to show up to get their legislation through, maybe they have to be looking in the mirror a little. I will remind members that I do support this legislation. When it comes back in the House, I will be supporting it unamended. However, some blame needs to be put on the Conservative Party members themselves about their procedural tactics, including in the Senate, where Senator Don Plett had to apologize for his tactics. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was quite distasteful about how he went about putting a wanted poster with a senator's picture up on social media. That is a style of politics that does not belong in Canada. We have a tradition of having a better decorum and respect. At the end of the day, that has to be called out in the same way as the issue that is before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs right now. We should maybe move a motion to bring the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, for his actions, before PROC, because they are equally as concerning to the House. I see my time is coming to an end, and I wish I had more of it, but I know my Conservative colleagues and all members of the House will give me an opportunity to continue to build on my thoughts.

1761 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 264