SoVote

Dec/7/23 3:19:52 p.m.
Watch

Again, this sounds like debate.

5 words

Sounds
Like

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Dec/7/23 3:20:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if she can inform the House as to the business for the rest of this week and into next week. I note that today is the final supply day, which means that we will be dealing with the supply bills this evening. Members may know by now that Conservatives have put on a number of opposed items in an effort to highlight the pain the Liberal carbon tax is imposing on Canadians, who are struggling with food prices at grocery stores. I would like to take this opportunity to let the government House leader know that we can wrap all that up very quickly if she will do everything she can to ensure that the Senate repeals its amendment gutting Bill C-234, which would have the effect of taking the carbon tax off farmers to bring grocery prices down. If she would commit to doing that, we could deal with the supply bill this evening in an orderly and timely manner. If not, in order to ensure Canadians understand the devastating impact the carbon tax will have on them, we will be voting around the clock until the government gets it through its mind that the carbon tax is causing all this misery for Canadians.

217 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 3:21:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians. I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy. However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate. As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

374 words

Caucus

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 3:23:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have 16 minutes left because, when I started at 10 minutes to two o'clock, I should have only had 10 minutes left, but Conservatives continued to rise on points of order during my speech. It veered into a place of actually trying to prohibit me from speaking. As you sit there and listen, if they attempt to engage in that same tactic again, perhaps you will have to call them into order. I would greatly appreciate your doing that. Prior to question period, I was trying to explain to this House, and indeed Canadians, that there are way more people who get more back than they put into the carbon tax. That is a fact. What I was saying just before question period is that one of the persons who gets way more back than he puts in is the Leader of the Opposition. We have an individual here who has a government-paid house and a government-paid car. He literally pays none of the expenses that go into the carbon tax, but he gets that rebate. So my question is, in fairness, when we are having a discussion about the price on pollution and how much people are getting back, does the Leader of the Opposition cash his rebate every three or four months when he gets it? I would really like to know the answer to that question. My guess is that he is like the vast majority of Canadians who check that box on page 1 when filing their income tax to receive the rebate on behalf of the family, and that he is receiving it directly deposited into his bank account. Meanwhile, he literally pays nothing into it, if we consider the fact that he has government-funded everything when it comes to expenses. However, I do not know that for a fact. I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to table his bank statements here so that we can properly see whether he is receiving that rebate. I am willing to put money on the fact that he or somebody in his family is receiving that rebate. I am willing to put a lot of money on that because the reality is that, despite the fact that Conservative after Conservative get up to criticize the price on pollution, the carbon tax, they never once mention how much people get back. They do not want to be shown as being glaringly hypocritical. They certainly would be if people actually realized that while Conservatives go on, purporting to be in it for the low-income Canadians and people who are struggling, those are the exact people who actually end up with more than they put in. It is not me who is saying this. This is from our Parliamentary Budget Officer, who Conservatives like to quote so often. According to Statistics Canada, and the data it has, when overlaid with this program, 94% of households with incomes below $50,000 receive rebates that exceed their carbon tax costs in 2023. Roughly half of households in this income category see a net gain between $20 and $40 per month, and about 4% see a net gain of $70 per month or more. As a matter of fact, 55% of those who are making at least $250,000 a year still receive more than they put in. Will Conservatives say this? No, of course not. That does not feed properly into their narrative. Conservatives get up in this House and try to suggest they are in it for the folks in our country who are struggling while they completely neglect to tell them this and while they vote against a national food strategy for schools, which they did yesterday. Meanwhile, on the other side, they are trying to suggest that they are the only ones who can help people who are struggling. They are trying to deceive people into thinking that they have the solutions when we know that they do not have the solutions. That is the reality of it. I get really concerned when I hear Conservative after Conservative come in here and talk about the price on pollution and how it is impacting people. They talk about farmers as well. Effectively, for 97% of farmers, it nets out to them not paying the carbon tax. How can they get up in here time after time and continue to mislead Canadians in this regard? They do it relentlessly. They do it without any consideration for the fact that they are not even telling Canadians the reality of the situation. That is what we see and it is absolutely shameful. I believe that it is because Conservatives have gone down this path of just thinking they can fool everybody and they can play off people's emotions and anxieties to the benefit of their political game—

815 words

Pollution

The Speaker

Dec/7/23 3:29:17 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Yellowhead is rising on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Dec/7/23 3:29:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is misleading the House here when he is talking about farmers not paying 97%. That is ridiculous. They are paying—

25 words

The Speaker

Dec/7/23 3:29:32 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Yellowhead for raising this issue but that sounds like debate. I will move to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

28 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/7/23 3:29:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the reality of that member standing up in the House and accusing me of not telling the truth is absolutely ridiculous when one considers that this member will tell people they are paying a price on pollution and will tell people they are paying a carbon tax without bothering to tell them that, oh, by the way, if one makes less than $250,000, one is definitely getting more money back than one is putting in, and if one does make $250,000 or more, one is 55% more likely to get more than one puts in. Will this member do that? No, of course he will not, because that would be being honest with Canadians. Just—

120 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/7/23 3:30:30 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Hon. Mike Lake

Dec/7/23 3:30:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, it is against the rules of the House to mislead the House. The hon. member just said that any Canadian making $250,000 or less is not paying the carbon tax. That is patently false—

39 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/7/23 3:30:42 p.m.
Watch

That is debate. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

11 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/7/23 3:30:47 p.m.
Watch

Welcome to the show, Madam Speaker. The Speaker should know, because she is sitting in the chair now for the first time, that this is the eighth point of order Conservatives have brought up on my speech trying to shut me down. We are going to see more of it. My 20-minute speech is probably going to be about 45 minutes. I take pleasure in knowing at least one Conservative will not be able to speak as a result of them continually cutting into my time like this. To that point, let me read to the member the facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Some 55% of households with incomes above $250,000 actually end up receiving more in rebates than they pay. That is the fact. Conservatives stand up in here and routinely, day after day, tell Canadians they are paying a carbon tax and it is contributing to all of the problems they have in their lives without even bothering to suggest they get more back than they put into it. This is unless of course someone is one of their rich friends, and probably somebody going to the $1,700 per person fundraiser that the Leader of the Opposition will be at tonight while all his MPs have to be in here voting. Those are the people they are actually talking to. Those are the people they are actually catering to. It is really important to reflect, and this is where I was going a few moments ago, on what is going on in the Conservative Party of Canada. Its members seem to be hung up on this narrative of using information and distorting the information in order to suggest to Canadians that what is happening to them is all at the hands of this Prime Minister, all at the feet of this Prime Minister, without actually reflecting on the reality. They use people's anxieties and fears to people's disadvantage. It is straight out of the alt-right Republican playbook of the MAGA Republicans. This is what we are seeing here. With what went on at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources yesterday and the way Conservatives acted, one would have thought it was Matt Gaetz who was the conductor of that ludicrous show of Conservative filibustering and Conservative antics. At one point, multiple Conservative MPs started filling up the room in an attempt to bully, intimidate, yell, heckle and scream in a committee meeting. This is literally the kind of material we see coming out of the U.S. Congress led by people like Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others on the right flank of the Republican Party. That is what we are seeing coming from the other side of the House. We are seeing MAGA politics, the politics of Donald Trump. We are seeing the politics of division, misinformation and the politics of profiting off anxieties and fears. That is what we see coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. Nowhere is that more clearly laid out than the manner in which Conservatives conducted themselves when it came to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. In that regard, the Conservatives intentionally voted against that deal, and for what reason? Nobody can really put their finger on it. Everything they seem to come out with is always about four weeks or five weeks after the fact. They never seem to be able to coherently explain to anybody, including the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the President of Ukraine and Canadians, for that matter, why they voted against it. Instead, they linked it to what they have in today's opposition day motion. They link it to a price on pollution, to a carbon tax, and say they can never support this Ukraine free trade deal, even though the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress want it, because it has a reference to a carbon tax in it. This is notwithstanding the fact that the agreement says environmental policy cannot be imposed in the other jurisdiction. They do not even worry about that. What about the fact that Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011? It has had a carbon tax since 2011. Ukraine is more progressive than the Conservative Party of Canada. I am very concerned when I continually hear the narrative and the misinformation coming from the other side of the House that is led with an objective of dividing Canadians based on misinformation and information that is factually not true. They will do it routinely time after time after time. We see it with Conservatives on just about every issue. Yesterday, there was a very important private member's bill, for the House to establish a national food policy in schools across Canada and to develop the framework for it so we could work with provinces to implement it. We are the only G7 country without one. There are something like 338 million children in developed countries throughout the world who have access to food in schools. We are pretty much the only country in the developed world that does not, yet Conservatives are even against that. They stand up in the House, complain and go on at great lengths about how people are suffering throughout our country, but then routinely, as every opportunity comes before them to do something for people, they have more interest in trying to put a division through the government and into the minds of Canadians to try to influence them into giving it power. I think it is disgraceful that we have seen this time and again. Once again, there is another opposition day motion before the House. I think this is the 18th or 19th since the last election, when the Conservatives ran on pricing pollution, and here they are, for the 17th, 18th or 19th time, I cannot keep track anymore, bringing in a motion against it. It is ridiculous, when all of them ran on pricing pollution under Erin O'Toole's scheme in the last election, some of whom were even around in 2008 to run under Stephen Harper's government on implementing a price on pollution through a cap-and-trade model that other provinces and U.S. states had adopted. I think it is crazy that they are still coming at it from this perspective. At the end of the day, I think Canadians will hold them to this. Canadians will agree that it is not in the best interests of Canada or of our people to literally turn our back on the environment, on future generations and on what we can do now to make life less dramatic with respect to weather events and the changes that climate change will bring into the future. That is our responsibility. It is something we need to take seriously. I certainly hope all members of the House will reject the motion, for the 18th or 19th time, so we can finally put to bed the issue of a price on pollution. We have already been through three elections where we have run on this platform and committed to this policy. I do not think that we need any more discussion on it. Canadians have made it very clear where they stand on pricing pollution, especially when we consider that the vast majority of people get back more than they put in. Someone has to be fairly wealthy; have some luxurious goods, a large house and multiple fancy vehicles; and buy a lot of gas and fossil fuels in order to put themself in a position where they are paying more than they are putting in. It is time for Conservatives to start being honest about that and start telling Canadians the truth about the real impact the price of pollution will have on them.

1306 words

Rebates

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

Dec/7/23 3:39:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to my colleague across the way, I will say that I am in a constituency with 70% of the irrigation in the country, so when he talks about very rich people, they are not my constituents. When I last spoke about this, I had examples of many of the irrigating farmers paying more than $100,000 in carbon taxes a year, and there are thousands of them in my riding because of irrigation. If he questions that, he should come to my riding; I will introduce them to him, and he will see that. The constituents I represent grow on 4% of the arable land and bring in 28% of the GDP for ag in the province of Alberta. This is costing them because they grow 60 different kinds of products, which translates to expensive food in this country. I know them.

144 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/7/23 3:40:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we heard another one of the member's colleagues earlier today say that he had asked the grocery store retailers who would end up paying the carbon tax that farmers and the grocery stores pay. According to one of the member's colleagues, and he can look it up in Hansard, it would be paid by consumers, as the costs would be transferred to them. All I have been trying to say for 20 minutes is that it is the consumer who ends up getting the rebate. The consumer gets the money back because, by the admission of his own colleague, those costs get passed on to the consumer. That is why what I am saying, and it comes from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is correct; 94% of households get back more back than they put in. Yes, some people are paying directly through a line item on a utility bill. Other people are paying it through the manner in which it is passed on, like the member's colleague said. At the end of the day, we know it is the consumer who pays it and it is the consumer who gets the money back.

198 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Dec/7/23 3:41:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have just joined the debate for the last few minutes, listening to my colleague speak, and I heard my friend from southern Alberta, the province I am from, speaking about irrigation and the need for it. I have to say that the carbon levy is supposed to be part of a more comprehensive climate change strategy. I, like the member from Medicine Hat, will question whether this has been enough from the current Liberal government, because we have not seen from the government real action on climate change that has reduced emissions. The member brought up the idea that we need to deal with irrigation. Alberta has just had the driest November in a century because of the impacts of climate change. This is the same province that now has a Conservative government trying to coal mine the Rocky Mountains, which would destroy the irrigation from the Oldman River for southern Alberta. The Conservatives do not want to deal with the climate change aspect, which we have to deal with if we are going to be working with farmers. I would like my colleague from the Liberal Party to perhaps comment on the fact that the Liberals have not been able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all, and the fact that the Conservatives will not even admit there is a problem.

225 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/7/23 3:43:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a provincial Conservative government in Alberta that also put a moratorium on renewable energy projects. Can people imagine, in the year 2023, when the entire world is moving toward renewable energy, that a provincial government would put a moratorium on the innovation and the progress of where the world is moving to? That is not going to benefit Alberta in the long run. It might help a bit in the short run for a little political gain, but it is not going to help anybody in the long run. With respect to the member's question about meeting targets, I would much rather have very ambitious targets and not quite achieve them than have some lofty goals that are not realistic or that are overly easy to achieve. It is extremely important that when we do set these goals, we set them in a way that allows us to actually strive for something. I recognize that we are on target to meet our 2026 goals, and we are certainly on target to meet the 2030 goals, but I know that the member knows, because she cares about the environment so much, that this is not the kind of thing we accomplish overnight. We are talking about societal and cultural changes in the way that people behave in terms of everyday life. It is extremely difficult to encourage people to change behaviour when there is a political party in here, the Conservative Party of Canada, the opposition, that is actively doing the other thing and telling people, “No, no, what you are doing by burning fossil fuels is totally fine; keep doing this because, do not worry, we will get rid of this if we get elected.”

292 words

Mr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 3:45:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as global market forces and inflation continue to hit Canadians, too many families are feeling the pressure of their monthly bills. Already, the Government of Canada has taken action on affordable child care, home retrofits, grocery prices and more. Now, we are taking an ambitious next step with a new energy affordability package. Can the member speak about energy affordability measures and what they include as we move forward with the package?

74 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/7/23 3:45:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are aware that, certainly while we go through this transition, energy is going to be a struggle for Canadians. That is why we are trying to work with Canadians to give them the resources and the tools they need to be able to transition away, in particular, from the very expensive fossil-fuel-based forms of energy that create a lot of carbon emissions and, as a result, the tax. That is why we are encouraging people to move toward heat pumps, for example, by giving rebates and giving incentives to do that. We will continue to invest in programs like that.

105 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Dec/7/23 3:46:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the positives of the carbon tax. However, the government itself has undermined its own policy, notably with its recent decision regarding heating oil in the Atlantic provinces. Is the government surprised that the Conservatives are now calling for this exemption to be extended to other target groups? I, for one, am not surprised at all.

63 words

Carbon

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/7/23 3:46:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the premise of the question is wrong. The member is suggesting that it was just for Atlantic provinces. It is not. The carve-out for home heating with oil is across the entire country. In my province of Ontario, there are twice as many people who use oil as in Atlantic Canada. I will say, though, that I believe that this is not the case in Quebec, because Quebec actually has a very ambitious program to get off fossil fuels; one will not be not allowed to build a new house there, as of the end of this year, or even to renovate and replace one's heating system, with a fossil-fuel-based appliance. Those are the kinds of measures we need in this country. It becomes very difficult to do that when we are fighting against an opposition that does not even believe we have a problem.

151 words

Quebec
Fuels

SoVote

House Hansard - 264