SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 12:13:36 p.m.
Watch

I am sure the hon. member will be able to add to his remarks during questions and comments. The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

27 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Apr/9/24 12:13:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's comments just exemplify how out of touch both the NDP and the Liberals are with Canadians. People are struggling in our communities. I went door to door on the weekend in an area that I did not do that well in during the last election. The comment I was hearing from people is that they are ready to axe the tax. The tax is not having any impact except for taking money to pay for Canadians' needs out of their pocketbooks. Does the hon. member recognize that what the NDP, Liberals and Bloc are supporting is a tax plan and not a climate plan?

109 words

Plan

Mr. Charlie Angus

Apr/9/24 12:14:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, can I just get a clarification? The member knocked on people's doors in British Columbia? The member was part of a government that brought in a provincial carbon tax. The member will not tell the truth when he is talking to people. He is going to axe the facts. People in B.C. are not paying a federal carbon tax. How dumb does he think his constituents are? How dumb does he think people are if he goes door to door with such blatant misinformation? This is a guy who brought in a carbon tax, who is blaming a government for a carbon tax that British Columbians are not paying. By the way, while B.C. burns, this is what we have to deal with in the climate-denying world of the Conservatives.

136 words

Carbon

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

Apr/9/24 12:15:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a new champion of carbon pricing just recently emerged. It is none other than Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, in a video from 2021 that recently resurfaced. She said, “I do my family's taxes, so I know we got $808.50.... When I go back and look at what I spent...in carbon taxes, because I was working from home, I wasn't commuting, my gas bills were way down, and even the amount...that I paid on my home heating, because we're principally natural gas where I live, I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer. I think a lot of people would be of the view that, if you're going to implement some kind of carbon or revenue-neutral carbon pricing, that is probably not a bad way of doing it.” Those are not my words. Those are Danielle Smith's words from 2021. Can the member for Timmins—James Bay explain to the House why he thinks Danielle Smith has done a complete about-face on this issue?

185 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Apr/9/24 12:16:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to say I would be careful in believing anything Danielle Smith said. They want to bring her to have a premiers' conference. This is the woman who said cigarette smoking was good for people. No wonder she thinks burning the planet is good for us too, while Alberta dies in drought and she cannot keep the power on. Would we have Danielle Smith, the conspiracy queen of North America, come and talk about carbon and the carbon crisis? My God, it is bad enough for my poor friends in Alberta. They cannot even keep the lights on in the energy superpower province, because she has chased out all the clean energy. She believes in smoking. I cannot even keep track of where Danielle Smith goes on a given day with the conspiracy claims she makes.

140 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 12:17:38 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with a brief question.

15 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/9/24 12:17:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is hard to be brief when the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is a voice of conscience in this place. He is the only person in days, weeks, maybe months, besides perhaps myself and the hon. member for Victoria, who speaks to the fact that the climate crisis threatens the future of our children, our grandchildren and civilization itself. It is in our hands to make a difference early. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is right. The government underspent by $15 billion on climate action and overspent by an obscene $34 billion to build the Trans Mountain pipeline that we do not want.

111 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Apr/9/24 12:18:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we gave $31 billion to big oil, so companies could take unrefined bitumen; they would not even bother to process it in Canada. It is the dirtiest product on the planet, and we are going to have the taxpayers pay to ship it. Meanwhile, the Conservatives cheer it on and the Liberals say it is going to be good because they will somehow lower our emissions. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels without killing the future of our children. Those are the facts.

86 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Apr/9/24 12:18:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives just said that Canada does not have an industrial carbon price. He is either ignorant about carbon tax policy or intentionally misleading the public. He should know that Canada's industrial carbon pricing system exists. The federal carbon pricing benchmark exists, and it is critically important because it sets expectations for how provincial and territorial governments are covering fuels and large emitters, as well as how these programs must be designed to meet federal minimum standards. Therefore, the leader of the Conservatives is intentionally misleading Canadians or does not understand the policy that he wants to run an election on. If he did even the quickest Google search, he would see the recent report entitled “Industrial carbon pricing the top driver of emissions reductions”; The Globe and Mail article, “Industrial carbon price more effective to reduce greenhouse gases than consumer policy”; or the CBC report, “Industrial carbon pricing has three times the impact on emissions as consumer carbon tax”. If the Leader of the Opposition had done his research, he would know that the federal minimum standard for industrial carbon pricing policy is one of the most critical climate policies in Canada. It has been one of the policies that has reduced emissions the most in Canada, and it actually needs to be strengthened. We could close the loopholes and make an even more robust policy. The Leader of the Opposition not only refused to answer whether he would scrap it; he said that it does not exist. The industrial carbon price exists. Climate change exists. Fighting the climate crisis is not optional. Canadians are still reeling from the impacts of last year's record-breaking wildfire season; the record-breaking heat dome; and the atmospheric rivers that washed away whole communities, roads, homes and farms. British Columbians are still experiencing a multi-year drought with extreme flooding at the same time. We are bracing for another record-breaking wildfire season. If they care about people, families, communities, workers, farmers, the land, the air, the water, our food and our homes, and if they care about what Canadians hold most dear, fighting the climate crisis is not optional. We will only get it done if we bring people together and if we unite people instead of dividing them. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservatives seems to think it is optional. He has no climate plan. He wants to ignore the climate crisis. I should note that, unlike many of his Conservative MPs, who voted against a resolution acknowledging that climate change is real in 2021, the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged the existence of climate change; he just opposes any solutions that would address it. He collects huge donations from oil and gas CEOs and then becomes their puppet, their cheerleader and their champion. Conservatives have absolutely no climate plan, and they cannot even agree that the climate crisis is real. However, while the Leader of the Opposition wants to ignore the climate crisis, the Prime Minister wants to use it to divide Canadians. He does not see fighting the climate crisis as an opportunity to unite people to take on this existential crisis. Instead, he uses it as a political wedge. He tried to buy votes with exemptions for Atlantic Canadians. He treated carbon pricing as the be-all and end-all of climate policy, so that when the Liberals bought a pipeline, missed targets and broke climate policies, they could present it as proof of their climate credibility. However, at the same time, the Liberals undermine their own policy, giving exemptions to the biggest polluters. Suncor gets to pay 14 times less for its pollution. The Liberals designed a carbon pricing system where the carbon price for everyday Canadians is 14 times higher compared with the carbon price for Suncor. It is not surprising when we remember that the Liberals continue to hand out billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies to oil and gas CEOs, who are making record profits. These are the same companies whose corporate greed has driven up costs and that are gouging Canadians as they struggle to make ends meet. While Canadians are struggling, corporate profits are at an all-time high, and rich CEOs are making more money than ever. The Liberals keep giving these CEOs more and more public money, sometimes under the guise of helping them clean up the environmental mess they have made. The Conservatives are even cosier with CEOs. Last year, dozens of oil and gas CEOs flocked to the Leader of the Opposition's fundraisers. At one of these events in Banff, the co-founder of Pathways Alliance, along with current and former oil sands CEOs, who have a long documented history of climate policy obstruction, donated thousands of dollars to the leader of the Conservative Party. These CEOs did this while they were raking in record profits, while they campaigning across the country with misleading advertising to greenwash the oil sands and while continuing to increase their emissions. It seems like the corporate-controlled Conservatives are once again listening to their CEO masters, I mean donors, and intend to scrap the industrial carbon tax to let big polluters pollute for free. The Conservatives are letting the CEOs, the donors, off the hook and leaving Canadians to deal with the devastating impacts of the climate crisis, with the excruciating impacts of corporate greed are gouging Canadians, who are struggling, and burning the planet. This motion talks about the idea of the Prime Minister bringing together premiers and provinces in the spirit of collaboration to discuss carbon pricing, and doing this to talk about critical issues, like climate policy and the cost of living crisis. This would be worthy of support. The language of the motion is misleading. I have a good faith amendment that will hopefully be considered by the official opposition. I heard the Bloc amendment, which I thought was similarly a good faith amendment. I was disappointed to see the Conservatives unable to accept a good faith effort to bring the provinces into a discussion about the climate crisis, about the cost of living crisis. If the Conservatives want to actually have this conversation, if they are genuine in their desire for the provinces and the federal government to come together to talk about the issues facing Canadians, then I hope they will consider our motion. I move that the motion be amended by replacing paragraph (a) with the following: (a) the industrial and consumer carbon tax and the ongoing cost of living crisis felt by all Canadians; and replacing paragraph (b) with the following: (b) the April 1 carbon tax increase.

1121 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 12:28:03 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the deputy whip if he consents to this amendment being moved.

84 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin

Apr/9/24 12:28:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is no.

6 words

Answer

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 12:28:50 p.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

17 words

85
Moved

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Apr/9/24 12:29:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the best way to encourage consumers to reduce carbon emissions is to give them alternatives, such as the SkyTrain in metro Vancouver, which I do not have to tell my colleague from British Columbia runs on clean, British Columbia-produced hydroelectricity. The best way is not to have an ever-increasing tax regime that makes life so much more difficult for people, for example people who drive in rural British Columbia, who do not have an alternative to driving. Would the member agree that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is simply to give Canadians good alternatives?

100 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Apr/9/24 12:29:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians absolutely deserve affordable, low-carbon alternatives. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party refuses to actually propose credible climate policy that would provide Canadians with those affordable, low-carbon alternatives. It is mind-boggling that the Leader of the Opposition continues to go out campaigning to scrap a policy without presenting how he would fill the emissions reduction gap, make life more affordable for Canadians and make a more climate-safe future for people now and future generations.

81 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/9/24 12:30:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois is not against federal-provincial discussions to establish policies that meet everyone's needs. However, the motion before us today calls for the meeting to establish “plans for provinces to opt-out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other responsible ideas to lower emissions”. Such plans already exist. The federal carbon pricing system contains an opt-out provision that is available to all provinces. Since all provinces may opt out from carbon pricing as long as they work to protect the environment, does my esteemed colleague not think that it would be far more useful to hold a federal-provincial meeting to discuss issues that the provinces would like to be able to opt out of, such as housing and health?

134 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Apr/9/24 12:31:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is lovely to hear people combatting the misinformation that comes out of the Conservative Party. We know that provinces have the option to present an alternative system, and provinces have done that. We see that in Quebec. We see that in British Columbia. We see these provinces also reducing their emissions and having incredible plans when it comes to electric vehicles, hydroelectricity and renewable energy. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to mislead Canadians with this rhetoric that we hear from them not only every day in the House but also when they go to rallies across the country. I would love to see emergency debates on the critical issues that are facing Canadians, including not only the climate crisis, but also housing, the toxic drug supply and the cost of living crisis. We need to bring provinces and the federal government together to talk about these issues. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives have done this in such a way.

162 words

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

Apr/9/24 12:32:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found the member's exchange with my Conservative colleague to be very interesting because he was basically saying to just give more options. It reminds me of the Premier of Saskatchewan, when he came before committee on March 27. The Canadian Press summed it up perfectly when it wrote, “Big polluters shouldn’t be punished financially—they should just emit less.” It is as though there are no incentives required. We just need tell them to do it, and I am sure they will do it. Does that sound like a plan to this member, when Conservatives get up to say that they just need more options, that companies should just emit less? Does that sound like something, to this member, that is going to resonate and actually impact our marketplace?

138 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Apr/9/24 12:33:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we absolutely need a strong industrial carbon price, and we need strong regulations to make sure that these big polluters cannot pollute for free. The Conservatives are clearly unwilling to stand up to their corporate donors. That said, the Liberals also have been giving out billions of dollars to the same companies. They have watered down key climate policies, such as the industrial carbon price, the emissions cap, clean fuel regulations and clean electricity regulations. We need strong climate policy to hold these corporations to account.

88 words

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Apr/9/24 12:34:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake. It is a pleasure to stand here on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. That was an interesting exchange we just heard when the NDP member took issue with many of the things the Liberals are doing that are destroying the economy of our country right now. However, at the same time, when she and her colleagues have a chance to vote against the Liberal government and go into an election to change the government, they side with it every single time. I just had the opportunity to come back from my constituency, where, like many colleagues, I was meeting with constituents. I had 6 two-hour constituent round tables last week. I had a chance to interact with dozens of constituents at these round tables, and a lot of issues were raised. Interestingly, the number one issue was not the carbon tax at those round tables. Time and again, in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, what was articulated at those round tables by constituents was how we can get rid of the Liberal Prime Minister before he destroys the economy of Canada. I will just mention a few of the other issues that were raised. The carbon tax was definitely the main policy issue raised, as well as housing, runaway deficits, safety in our streets, immigration and the recent challenges with the immigration system. Of course, health care is always raised, especially at a time when it is clear that we are going to spend more on interest on the debt the Liberal government has rang up than we will spend on health care in this country over the next few years, so there are a lot of issues to talk about. I think it is helpful, in the context of what we are talking about today, to revisit the legacy of economic chaos that is in the DNA of the Liberal Party, and that is the Trudeau legacy. It is very important to revisit the Trudeau legacy of the 1970s and 1980s. It was a Liberal government that ran up 14 deficits in 15 years, and there were results of that time. Of course, that was a time of drastic economic experimentation by, at the time, the most left-leaning prime minister we had ever had. Obviously, that has definitely been beaten by the current government, but at that time, it was the most left-leaning government we had ever had. It undertook an economic experiment, and we saw crises, including an energy crisis, an inflation crisis, a housing crisis and a national unity crisis, that stretched right to the end of that government in 1984 and, interestingly, way beyond the time it was in power. Of course, the nine years following that government was the Mulroney government. I remember when some of the Liberal members were new and would come into the House in 2015 and 2016 to talk about the biggest deficits in Canadian history being under the Mulroney government, but what they did not mention at that time was that those deficits were made up entirely of interest on Trudeau's debt. The deficits it ran were largely in balance, in fact, probably a bit in surplus, but the interest payments on the Trudeau debt caused us to run deficits for many years after that. That bill came due in about the mid-nineties, from 1995 to 1997, when we were under the Liberal Chrétien-Martin government. Some of these members served under that government. When the bill came due, we saw absolutely dramatic cuts, some of the most significant cuts we have ever seen, to health care and social services spending in this country. That is interesting because Liberal members often stand up to ask what Conservatives are going to cut when we talk about bringing some sanity to our fiscal situation in this country, but what really made significant cuts to spending on things that are important to Canadians was that Liberal government, which in two years, from 1995 to 1997, cut 32% from health care and social services transfers in this country. Can members imagine a government in 2024 having to cut 32% from health care and social services funding? That is what happened from 1995 to 1997 because of the absolutely tragic economic legacy of a Trudeau government. Here we are again. We are now eight years into a government. It has been eight deficits in eight years for the current government. I assume we will have a ninth coming up soon, so it will be nine deficits in nine years. That is 23 deficits in 24 years under the economic policies of the current Prime Minister and the Prime Minister Trudeau of the seventies and eighties. Under the current Liberal government, backed up by the NDP, we have doubled our country's debt. Taking a look at the things that could help that, and thinking about the conversation we are having today, what might help us in terms of our economic situation right now and the chaos we are seeing economically and otherwise is, perhaps, revenues from oil and gas. That might actually help. I took a look at the oil and gas import numbers for 2022, the most recent numbers we have to date, and they would be astonishing to Canadians who assume we have a lot of oil and gas production in Canada. Obviously, we are one of the world leaders in terms of our vast resources and the potential that comes with our oil and gas resources, but what a lot of people do not realize is that Canada, every year, imports oil and gas, because the policies of the current Liberal government have made it impossible to build a pipeline in this country. Instead, mostly to eastern Canada, we are importing oil and gas. In 2022 we imported $21.5 billion in crude oil alone. That was up 46% from 2021. Of course, the Americans are the number one supplier of oil and gas products like crude oil to Canada. The number two and three countries are Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, totalling over $5 billion in crude oil alone coming into Canada. On refined petroleum products, we are talking about even more: $26.1 billion in 2022 alone, which was up 55% from 2021. We were importing about $47 billion between the two of those in 2022, and that is product that could absolutely have been sourced here in Canada. The reason that situation exists is that we hold Canadian producers, hard-working producers and workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country, to a higher standard than we hold producers in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. We do not ask producers in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia to account for upstream emissions, for the impact on the environment or for the impact on the social fabric of their countries. It was interesting that about a year ago we had the minister before committee and I had a chance to ask him about this. His was response was that, of course, Canada has no ability to hold those countries to account. Their own domestic governments control those types of things, and Canada cannot walk in and hold them to account, but we definitely hold Canadian producers to account for that. The one thing we can do is refuse to take oil and gas from countries that do not meet the Canadian standard, the same standard we apply to Canadian producers. This is the world the Prime Minister has created in eight years. If we go back eight years and take a look at the situation that existed eight years ago, and our leader summed it up very well this morning when he spoke, it was a world where we had a balanced budget. In 2015, we had worked hard, coming out of the economic slowdown, and The New York Times spoke of Canada having the richest middle class in the world, having just overtaken the Americans after decades. It was a situation where we did not have the housing crisis we have right now. I look forward to speaking some more about these things when we take questions from the other parties.

1386 words

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

Apr/9/24 12:44:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whom many Canadians have respected as one of Canada's greatest prime ministers for a lot of his efforts and the things he brought in, like Canada's Charter of Rights and the repatriation of the Constitution, at the very least. I think the member undervalues that. It is interesting that he wanted to highlight the past, although he has often criticized me for bringing back some of the disasters of the Stephen Harper era. Maybe he can justify how it is that Stephen Harper had a mega, multi-billion dollar surplus handed to him, which he converted into a multi-billion dollar deficit. That was before the recession took place. How does he justify that Stephen Harper's government did not balance the budget? Even during the last year of Stephen Harper's government, he had to sell off shares of GM at a huge discount to try to give the impression that he balanced the books.

168 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 296