SoVote

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

Dec/7/23 10:32:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in this place, and of course to follow the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, and his wise words. He did end on the issue of first nations, which are now taking the government to court, at least 133 of them, bands represented by the Ontario chiefs, to fight what they are calling the discriminatory carbon tax. First and foremost, I think we can all agree it is crucial to recognize the undeniable commitment of indigenous peoples to environmental stewardship and sustainability. Of course, many communities have deep connections to the land, and have for generations practised a harmonious relationship with nature. It comes to that, which is supposed to be the allegedly most important relationship for the Prime Minister, the one with indigenous peoples, but there are now 133 Ontario chiefs taking the government to court. It is not necessarily something they want to do; it is something they are forced to do. The following is a headline from APTN: “Chiefs of Ontario ask for judicial review of a carbon price regime.” I will read the first paragraph, because it highlights quite perfectly exactly what I want to speak to: “First Nations leaders in Ontario say Canada needs to fix what they call a ‘discriminatory’ carbon price system, arguing the federal government failed to address their repeated concerns and blocked their exemption request only to then issue a carveout [to other parts of] Canada.” That is quite clear. The next quote builds on what the leader of the official opposition was just saying about the fact that first nations leaders are not consulted despite the repeated comments of the government. It reads, “A First Nation leader called the move ‘completely avoidable’ if the federal government had only ‘showed up to the table.’” That is a quote from Abram Benedict, Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and the head of the Chiefs of Ontario's environmental portfolio. There are Ontario groups saying that they are disproportionately hurt by the carbon price tax. They are saying that they are willing to work with the government to come to a solution, yet the government does not even want to have that conversation. It will call anyone else “colonial”, but that is peak colonialism right there. The government refuses to show up at the table and negotiate with first nations communities, which have to pay the carbon tax that is causing the price of heating, eating and travelling to go up unnecessarily. However, they are not getting the break if they live on reserve. They do not get the rebate, so they are paying more and getting less. What is even worse with the government is that its department of Indigenous Services Canada has actually doubled in bureaucrats. There are almost 9,000 people working in the department, yet according to its own departmental data, it is hitting only 18% of its stated goals. In what other place on this planet can one get away with hitting 18% of one's goals? We have asked the minister many times to answer that question. There is no clear answer, but I can tell members what happens: The targets are actually moved down the road, so if it is not completed this year, it is just moved to next year and the year after that. The lives of indigenous peoples, under the current government, are not getting any better. The move by the Ontario chiefs proves that. The claim by the government that people are better off, with more money in their pockets because the rebates give them more, is not true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that. The Ontario chiefs lawsuit proves the example yet again. The government's plan to continue to increase the carbon tax year after year is not making people better. Emissions are going up. The government does not have an environmental plan; it has a tax plan, one that is making the lives of Canadians, whether indigenous or non-indigenous, miserable. It is spreading the misery around. It is probably easy for the government. Under its policies, it cannot seem to encourage more people to start businesses because, under this tax system, the more one makes, the more the government takes, so it will just keep spreading the misery and bringing people down. Those people are the middle class. Those are the people who are hurting the most. The environment minister decided to take a nice trip to the UAE to talk about reducing emissions. It is interesting that he can sit and lecture others about trying to live their lives, pointing his finger at others who are trying to maybe take a vacation if they work all year around, and trying to feed their families, for crying out loud. Nowadays, food bank usage is through the roof. Expenses are through the roof. Rent and mortgages are through the roof. The minister has the audacity to look at others and say, “How dare you get on that plane?” He bemoans the wealth of others for maybe creating a job through a small business or two, creating opportunity in their community, then tells them they cannot see the fruits of their labour. He will take all that life has to offer. I bet that the environment minister ate at the best restaurants and stayed at the finest hotels. Now, there are 133 Ontario chiefs taking the government to court because it would not sit at the table and negotiate on a way forward, something that should be common sense to the government. It had to get to the point where these communities have to use money that would be better spent on providing services for their people. They now have to use it to go to court just to try to stop the misery the government is inflicting. In April 2022, the Auditor General, in what is called by many a scathing report on carbon pricing, found that indigenous groups were disproportionately burdened by the Liberal carbon tax. In section 5.60, the report states: Indigenous groups and small- and medium-sized enterprises were still disproportionately burdened. [The Auditor General] also found that Environment and Climate Change Canada had not established any criteria for their assessment of provincial and territorial systems in the federal benchmark to consider the potential disproportionate burden of carbon pricing for all jurisdictions. Unfortunately, in February of this year, a press release read: The reality in First Nations communities is poverty stricken conditions along with substantially higher costs for all goods and services in rural and remote communities. The Fuel Charge program has added a costly burden on First Nations, who experience far greater poverty and substandard housing and infrastructure than the “average” Canadian as a result of colonialism. The Fuel Charge cost to First Nations citizens amounts to another cash grab for Canada, removing several million dollars a year from those [people who are] least responsible for the climate crisis. That pretty much says it all. The hurt is real for first nations communities. There is not more money in their pockets because of the current government. The housing crisis has not gone away. The government leaves opportunities and passes them by. Leaders from Germany and Japan came to the government, saying that they would like to buy our energy. Who would benefit from that energy, in a lot of cases? First nations communities would, through jobs, opportunity, investment and equity stake. The government just fluffed off the Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Minister of Japan, saying, “No, you can buy your energy somewhere else.” Selling our energy would have provided some much-needed relief for indigenous communities, but the government, like the carbon tax, ignores the needs, wishes and desires of first nations communities. In our motion, we are calling for the carbon tax to be taken off for families, families and first nations.

1345 words

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

Dec/7/23 10:42:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Conservatives are is very consistent, in the sense that they neither understand nor appreciate the policy issues related to our environment. They are, indeed, climate deniers. Today, we are going to be debating the Conservatives' agenda to get rid of the price on pollution. There would be a substantial cost to that. The member, in his election platform, indicated to his voters that he supported a price on pollution. How does he justify the 180° flip-flop on that issue?

88 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale

Dec/7/23 10:43:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax regime that the Liberal member opposite seems to keep promoting is not working. The fact that emissions keep going up is the problem. If the stated goal is to impose the carbon tax but emissions keep going up and people are suffering as a result, maybe it is time to rethink the position and the fact that it is not working. Maybe we should be investing more or opening up the free market to more technology and more rapid innovation to get to the world of more clean energy, but we can do that only if there is an equal playing field that allows the market to provide. This is something the government is not doing; it is taking, and redistributing only to ideas that match what the Liberal ideology is. That is the problem.

140 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/7/23 10:44:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about indigenous people's feeding their kids. I will tell members what it is like in my riding, where the Nuu-chah-nulth went to court to actually exercise their constitutionally protected rights to fish so they could feed their kids. What did the Conservatives do when in power? They fought them; they spent millions of dollars fighting them in court. When the Nuu-chah-nulth won in court, what did the Conservatives do? They appealed. Not once but twice did the courts side with the Nuu-chah-nulth. All that the people wanted to do was get back on the water and fish to feed their children. The MP who sat in the House before me did not say “Nuu-chah-nulth” once in 15 years. The Nuu-chah-nulth felt unheard and invisible in this place. I have said “Nuu-chah-nulth" 94 times. Will the Conservatives support the Nuu-chah-nulth? Will they support nations that have won in court to defend their constitutionally protected rights to feed their kids, or will they continue supporting litigation against indigenous people?

190 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale

Dec/7/23 10:45:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the passion from the member across the way, the issue is similar to what we are talking about right now. The member opposite from the NDP supports the current government. What we are talking about right now is the 133 Ontario chiefs who are bringing the government to court because the consultations broke down because the government refused to even talk to the chiefs about issuing a carve-out or trying to alleviate the misery of their people. The NDP keeps supporting the government. Will you stop supporting the government and pull back on your commitment to—

103 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 10:45:58 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows full well he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair. If the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni has something to add, he will have to wait for questions and comments. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville for a brief question.

53 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Dec/7/23 10:46:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to point out to my colleague that Quebec's agriculture sector is not regulated by federal carbon pricing or the Quebec carbon market. If the Conservatives are so concerned about farmers, what is their game plan for fighting climate change, which is having a major impact on our agriculture industry?

57 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale

Dec/7/23 10:46:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the people at the forefront of developing technology innovation are those working in agriculture. They have always been ahead of the curve with respect to using the best technology and best practices, because it helps them continue their operation; it helps them become sustainable. Those who are working the land in the agriculture sector need to have the best practices in order to keep their operation going. We want to continue to make it feasible for young people to get into the farming sector, but when the government is making it harder and harder for the people growing our food to make a living, we have a bit of a problem. This is the whole argument about the price of food. It is getting too expensive. Farmers are having a harder time making a living, and when they cannot make a living, it is tough to get people into agriculture.

152 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 10:47:49 a.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. If individuals want to have conversations, they will need to take them outside. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

24 words

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

Dec/7/23 10:48:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to provide some thoughts with respect to Conservative opposition day motions. One thing I have recognized is that nothing has really changed. Time and time again, the Conservatives want to push the issue of what they classify as a tax. They say “cut the tax”, that bumper sticker about which I have talked. In fact, in looking through social media, we see the big blue signs. We see how the Conservatives have tried to amplify and simplify that message. This is a message of deception. It is often the type of thing I would hear when I listened to Donald Trump, the former president of the United States, the messaging and types of speeches he would deliver. It is like a flashback. I see the Conservative Party catering more and more to the far right, the MAGA right, if I can put it that way. I have made reference to how that right has virtually taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party today and the office of the leader of the Conservative Party. Other that the Canada-Ukraine issue, it is difficult to imagine many other issues on which the Conservative Party is so out of tune and prepared to mislead Canadians on public policy than its “axe the tax” slogan. For people who are following the debate, I would encourage them to listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party actually has said. When he was trying to appeal to people, he was using examples. He talked about this individual or that individual. He gave the impression that if we axed the tax, if we took away the price on pollution, we would be so much better off. An hon. member: Yep. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one member from the Conservative Party has confirmed exactly what I have said. Madam Speaker, it is just not true, yet the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country to spread that kind of information. I thought that style of politics was just south of the border, in the United States, where it was amplified by Donald Trump. Now we have the leader of the Conservative Party trying to out do Donald Trump. Let us think about his comments. He says that it is more affordable for people if we get rid of the price on pollution, if we axe the tax. I represent roughly 95,000 people in Winnipeg North, although it may be starting to grow a bit more and is getting closer to that 100,000 mark. Over 80% of the residents I represent get a net benefit because of the price on pollution. When the leader of the Conservative Party says he will get rid of the price on pollution, that also means he will get rid of the environmental rebate. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is an independent, non-partisan office, with professional civil servants. It has made it very clear that over 80% of people have a net benefit because of the rebates. That is the reality and that is what we hear from the independent budget officer of the House of Commons. In Winnipeg North, it is even a little greater. Therefore, when the member tries to give examples, when he says what about this person or that person, most of the people he is referencing get a net benefit because of the rebate. If we take away the price on pollution, or axe the tax, as the Conservatives call it, we take money out of the pockets and purses of 80% of the constituents I represent. When the Conservative leader says that by getting rid of the price on pollution, the Conservatives will be making things more affordable for people because they are going to have more disposable income, that is just not true. The sad reality is that every Conservative member on the other side knows that. Does that prevent them from spreading untruths? No, they continue to do it through social media. That is a nice way of saying they are spreading misinformation for those who might ask me the question.

695 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Dec/7/23 10:54:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member said that we are spreading untruths. Could we possibly define that?

22 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 10:54:23 a.m.
Watch

That is a question to be asked during questions and comments; it is not a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

22 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/7/23 10:54:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is misinformation. Many would say it is misleading. Let me put it this way. A constituent of mine is told that 80% of Canadians will receive more money back than they pay for the price on pollution, and that has been affirmed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, the Conservatives, including the leader of the Conservative Party, who is leading the Donald Trump charge, are saying that getting rid of the price on pollution is going to put more money in the pockets of Canadians, and that is not true. How would members classify that? I cannot be bold and blunt about what the leader is saying, because it would be unparliamentary. However, if we look at the information the leader is talking about, it is misleading Canadians. At the end of the day, everything the Conservative Party is doing today seems to be focused on that one issue. It is completely ignoring the environment. We are waiting to see any form of a climate plan from the Conservative Party. The last time I can recall the Conservatives standing in the chamber talking about their environmental plan was when Erin O'Toole was their leader, and they said they supported a price on pollution. A Conservative member just asked where he is. The Conservatives kicked him out and he is no longer around. There have been a few Conservative leaders, but they really like the current one. Maybe it is because of the far-right element. Most, if not all, Conservatives seem to be onside with moving to the far right, and it is at great cost. As I pointed out, all Conservatives who campaigned in the election two years ago made it very clear that they supported a price on pollution. It was in their election platform. However, that has changed. That is a fact.

310 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 10:57:30 a.m.
Watch

Members in the chamber are not free to yell. If members have questions and comments, I would ask them to please wait until the appropriate time. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

30 words

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/7/23 10:57:30 a.m.
Watch

No, we didn't, Kevin.

5 words

Kevin

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/7/23 10:57:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the ways that the Conservative Party is offside and maybe do bit of contrast for members. If we look at the emissions graph, over the last number of years we have witnessed a shift. The curve is now starting to bend in a direction that I believe Canadians would be very supportive. Had there not been a change in government back in 2015, and under Stephen Harper's leadership, the curve would have continued up by an estimated nine points. Over the last number of years, the line has gone down by seven points under this administration. We are going in the right direction when it comes to greenhouse emissions, which is an important issue to Canadians. In real numbers, I am told it is like 53 megatonnes. For my constituents who are like me, I try to better understand what that means. That is the equivalent of 11 million cars being taken off the road. The population of Manitoba is about 1.3 million people. The population of Saskatchewan, I would guesstimate, is probably somewhere around 1.15 million. The population of the province of Alberta is well over three million, from what I can recall. We could take away every vehicle in the Prairies. Over the last number of years that is 53 megatonnes of GHG, or 11 million vehicles. To me, that speaks volumes about what the government has been able to achieve in a relatively short time span. We were able to achieve that through providing different forms of incentives and programs. I want to highlight the fact that we know Canadians want to participate. I have heard this for many years. I remember being in the Manitoba legislature and we were talking about banning plastic bags. We can look at the banning of single-use plastics, on which this government has moved forward, or our budget measures on financial incentives to support people. Our constituents would like to do more on the environmental front. We have programs like the greener homes grant. The uptake has been fantastic. A number of people in all regions of the country are participating in a program that will ultimately reduces greenhouse gas emissions, again, a budgetary measure. Another program is about electric vehicles. It is interesting when we look at the numbers. Canadians are choosing electric vehicles faster than expected, with 10% of new vehicles being ZEVs in the first half of 2023. These types of vehicles are a dependable form of transportation, with lower operating costs and reducing the environmental footprint. In its budget measures, the federal government has provided incentives. Some of the provinces have done likewise. Canadians are taking advantage of those programs. We have seen a high demand for those vehicles. I would suggest that it has been very successful. When I think of how industry has benefited, two companies that come to mind right away are Stellantis, with the benefits that are being created there, and Volkswagen. Volkswagen is a substantial investment of a private company and both federal and provincial governments. Today, we have the Conservative Party opposing the agreement that we achieved with Volkswagen, contrary to even Doug Ford, but there is a difference, I guess, as the provincial party is a little more progressive than the federal Conservative Party. However, at the end of the day, we can think of the results and the potential that is there when we get companies around the world recognizing that Canada is on the right track when it comes to dealing with emissions. Volkswagen, in many ways, is one of the leaders in the world moving forward in the electrification of vehicles. It made a decision not to go to the United States but to come to Canada and make a serious investment. Once that investment is complete, it will be the largest manufacturing processing facility in Canada and, I am told, even in North America. I think it will be something like 200 football fields. It is going to be a huge plant. We can think of the types of green jobs that are going to be there as a direct result of Volkswagen making that decision. Where is the Conservative Party? It actually opposed what the federal government has done with Volkswagen. Its members do not like the fact that the federal government made a decision to make a financial contribution, even though the Progressive Conservative provincial government of Ontario has done likewise, not to mention the community of St. Thomas itself, which has also come to the table because of infrastructure. This brings real life to an industry that has the potential to grow, and the Conservatives and the climate deniers are completely offside. It is not just the province of Ontario that would benefit. We can think of the minerals involved and the other components. It is not just Ontario or the St. Thomas community that is going to benefit from this. All of Canada, if not directly, will indirectly benefit from this, and it does not stop there. I think of Stellantis and how, in Canada, the industry of electrification of vehicles continues to grow, and those two companies are not alone. Is it any wonder that today we lead the G7 in foreign investment coming into Canada? As a political entity, the Government of Canada recognizes that green jobs are golden jobs going forward, and we need to see those types of investments. As a government, from day one, we have supported Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want an economy that is going to work for everyone. As the Conservative Party's single focus seems to be on spreading misinformation, filibustering and ultimately playing a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, we will continue to be solely focused on having the backs of Canadians and providing the jobs that are going to be there for the future to ensure that life remains affordable and to deal with the issues that we know are important to Canadians. That means, in good part, dealing with the environment in a very real and tangible way.

1034 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Dec/7/23 11:08:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Winnipeg North giving his speech on our opposition day motion to eliminate the carbon tax for farmers, first nations and families. He indicated that Stellantis and Volkswagen were getting significant federal contributions and that the Liberal government has made very large financial commitments to Volkswagen and Stellantis to the tune of about $40 billion. Is the member comfortable going back to his constituents of Winnipeg North and telling them that each and every single one of those families is going to have to contribute $3,000 for those plants in southern Ontario to function here in Canada? Is he comfortable telling his constituents that?

113 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/7/23 11:09:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada, through a procurement process, awarded Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts, and that Boeing contract is going to provide hundreds of jobs for people in Winnipeg. Substantial government dollars were used to support Boeing and our having military aircraft. I have no problem with the Government of Canada supporting industries that are going to provide good, sound jobs, either directly or indirectly, whether they are directly focused in the province of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba or any other region of the country. It is an issue of fairness, and this government has been fair with respect to this particular project. Whether it is with Volkswagen or Stellantis, unlike the Conservative Party, we see these as investments that are going to ultimately build a stronger, healthier industry and provide good, solid middle-class jobs well into the future. The difference is that we think of the future jobs for Canadians. We are not stuck in the past, and we are open to having a healthier environment.

172 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Dec/7/23 11:10:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and, as a Quebecker, I feel completely left out. Yet again, the House is debating the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec and has nothing to do with Quebec. Furthermore, I am wondering how the Quebec Conservative members feel about this. Every time their party moves motions, they exclude Quebec. I am wondering why they do not fight for their party to move motions about things that affect Quebeckers. On the other hand, every time the Liberals rise to speak about climate change, they make it seem like everything is hunky-dory, like it is all a bed of roses. Canada is one the worst countries at fighting climate change. It is the only G7 country whose emissions have not dropped since 1990. According to a study by the International Monetary Fund, which can hardly be described as a far left environmental group, in 2022, Canada directly or indirectly invested $50 billion in the oil industry. I would like to ask my colleague how many social housing units he thinks $50 billion could have built.

191 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/7/23 11:11:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, regarding the first aspect of the member's question, that is why I reinforced at the beginning of my comments that the real objective for the Conservative Party is to have a bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax”. That is really what the Conservatives are hoping to achieve. On getting rid of the price on pollution, the related facts are completely irrelevant to the Conservative Party. That is unfortunate because there is so much misinformation being spread throughout the country regarding what the Conservative Party is actually doing.

93 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 264