SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 4:40:51 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment; the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, Mental Health and Addictions.

49 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

May/30/24 4:41:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, it will be my absolute pleasure to be sharing my time with the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne. As always, it is a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of residents of my riding of Davenport to today's opposition motion by the Conservatives. I am going to read the motion, just because, in my own imagination, I always think that of course there are people who might want to look at this at a future date and they are going to want to know what the opposition motion is about. The motion states: That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day. First of all, there is no NDP-Liberal government, so we should probably just state that up front. There is a supply and confidence agreement between the Liberal government and the NDP. I would also say that I do not agree with the premise of this motion. It is not the carbon pricing that is stopping Canadians from affording a summer vacation. The only provinces that are actually subject to carbon pricing are those provinces that do not have a current plan in place to reduce their carbon emissions. For example, my home province of Ontario, and it was just mentioned by one of my NDP colleagues here, did have a carbon-pricing mechanism before the current provincial government was elected in 2016. It was a cap-and-trade system with Quebec and California. When the provincial Conservative government in Ontario got into office, it cancelled that system and, unfortunately, not only was there a cost to cancelling it, but the province actually lost, and I remember this very clearly, $3 billion in annual revenue. On top of that, the government did not replace it with another system to reduce carbon emissions. It is known that climate change is happening. Every country in the world needs to do its part to reduce emissions, to meet its Paris Agreement targets and to move to a low-carbon future. The Conservatives like to make bold and, sadly, unfounded assertions that carbon pricing is worsening food-security challenges in this country, but there is no evidence that this is happening. In fact, time and again, the data suggest that the impact of carbon pricing on inflation is the equivalent of a rounding error. We hear that time and time again in the finance committee. This fact is also supported by the Bank of Canada and many others. Carbon pricing has no real, discernible impact on any increases of food costs in this country. We have seen experts appear at the agriculture committee suggesting the same, saying that they can find no straight line between carbon pricing and food costs. Therefore, what do we know? During a high inflationary period worldwide, compared to G7 countries, many that do not have carbon pricing, Canada has the second-lowest food inflation rate. What else is the data telling us? It is telling us about the impacts of climate change on food costs. Let us take, for example, the impact on grapes or cherries, like those in Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Increased forest fires taint the crops, rendering the products of those farmers unsellable. Blueberry farms in Nova Scotia, like the one in the riding of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who unfortunately spoke against carbon pricing yesterday, are losing large amounts of crops to huge fluctuations in precipitation that lead to either drought conditions or extreme wet weather. Let us also talk about the impacts of flooding on animal agriculture, like what we saw during the atmospheric river flooding in the Lower Mainland of B.C. We saw cows up to their udders in flood water; we saw many barns destroyed; and, unfortunately and very sadly, we saw many animals perish. We also have seen the climate impacts on invasive species on our crops. We have seen that climate change helps the spread of new pests that threaten both crops and animals. We are also seeing the climate change impacts on the warming of the oceans, and that this warming poses a serious threat to the billion-dollar east coast lobster fishery. I could go on and on with a lot of examples, but these are the costs that we have to be very focused on. These are the real costs of climate change, and they are happening in real time, year after year. Where is the leader of the party opposite to be found in actually addressing these issues with real solutions? He is nowhere. We all remember last year when, being the leader of the party opposite, he had to cancel the axe the tax rallies in Yukon and Okanagan Valley because of wildfires. Yet, he has absolutely nothing to say about climate change, nothing to say to farmers and the next generation of farmers about how the Canadian government will take their concerns seriously and support them to be more resilient in the face of a changing climate. Actually, there is something else that members opposite are not being honest about. Taking away the price on pollution would also remove the Canada carbon rebate and hurt people with that key income support, which is helping them to put food on the table. The Canada carbon rebate benefits lower-income Canadians the most. These are Canadians who tend to suffer most from food insecurity. Germaine Romberg in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is on a fixed income and depends on the Canada carbon rebate payments to make ends meet to pay for rent and for other necessities. The $300 she got every four months last year on top of her disability payments made a world of difference for her monthly bills. She is not alone; this story has played out with Canadians across the country. A study published late last year in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, called “Canadian food inflation: International dynamics and local agency”, looked at the difference between the amount Canadians pay and the amount they get back in the Canada carbon rebate. The author concluded that: Removing the tax may actually make some Canadians, particularly lower-income and rural Canadians, worse off than they are under the carbon tax...The impacts of the carbon tax on food prices are suggested to be small. If they are smaller than the difference between CAI payments and carbon tax paid, many Canadian households will suffer a net loss due to the repeal of the tax. This is the same thing that the Government of Canada has been saying all along: Eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay. There are tens of thousands of Canadians out there like Germaine in Saskatoon, who, if they lost their rebate payments, would have their ability to purchase food severely diminished. We know that Conservatives, sadly, would deprive people of these rebate payments if they ever got into power. I am going to repeat something that one of my colleagues said this morning, because I really believe it is important to be repeated. It reads: Carbon pricing continues to be the most efficient, simple and cost-effective way to meet our targets. It is a measure that encourages the whole population, every household and every business, to find ways to cut pollution, whether and however they would like. It sends a powerful message forward of confidence to businesses to invest in cleaner technologies to be more energy efficient in the future. Carbon pricing does not raise the cost of living. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, as I mentioned earlier, it represents only a tiny fraction of inflation and increase in the price of groceries, which is less than half a percent. However, there is a 10% supplement for people living in rural and remote communities. We proposed increasing it to 20%, but the Conservatives, sadly, have been delaying Bill C-59 for months now. I am hoping that they will stop delaying this, but for provinces under the federal pricing system with a Canada carbon rebate, 80% of Canadian households receive a refund greater than what they pay. In fact, if carbon pricing were abolished today, not only would clean energy investment and job creation grind to a halt, but our low- and middle-income families would have less money in their pockets. I am urging all members of this House to vote “no” to the opposition day motion, because, unfortunately, the Conservative opposition party has no plan to address climate change, and no plan to actually help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.

1473 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/24 4:51:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, but here we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and what does the government do? It had a successful program, the greener homes program, that employed many tradespeople and enabled people to reduce their energy needs and their carbon footprint. People were able to take autonomy in their own homes to come up with a cleaner energy future and be part of that story. It is still out of reach for many Canadians, as many Canadians need heat pumps and cannot access them, but this government killed that program, which was hugely successful. Is my colleague, whom I have worked with many times on climate-related issues, going to be working with her government to bring that program back and actually expand it so that all Canadians can access it and help tackle this climate crisis?

146 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/30/24 4:52:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passion. I agree with him. It was a very popular program. The residents in my riding of Davenport loved that program as well. He will recall that when we introduced the program, it was not that easy to apply to. We reintroduced it and, all of a sudden, an overabundance of Canadians applied. My understanding is that there continues to be a lot of support for that program and we are hoping to reintroduce that program in the near future.

91 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/30/24 4:52:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to commiserate with the member for Davenport in having her office vandalized in such a gruesome manner that now the Toronto Police Services Hate Crime Unit is investigating it as a hate crime. As one member of Parliament to another, we do not enjoy such things being done to our offices and the risks that come to our office staff. A previous member of the Liberal Party mentioned William Nordhaus, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. In his research that has been used by IPCC, and I have read the IPCC report, he specifically points out that if we have carbon taxes, we should do nothing else because they are very damaging to the economy. Of course, the government's policy has been to try to do all of it, which has been damaging to the economy. Even William Nordhaus's research demonstrates that in his calculations. I wonder if the member would agree with William Nordhaus that we should only have carbon taxes, which is the economist's preferred path. Our preference on this side is to go with homeowners and families in our ridings who are just looking for a break from one long weekend to the next so this summer they can have a staycation and not to pay any of the excise taxes, gas taxes and GST on any of their fuels.

229 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/30/24 4:54:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think I need the rest of my time to answer the three different things that the member talked about, but first I want to thank him for his kind words. The vandalism of my office a couple of days ago is something that happens to members of all political parties. We all have to make sure that we discourage that and that we encourage good protests, healthy debate and public discourse. What I would say to the member opposite is that carbon pricing works. We have introduced a climate action plan and framework with over 100 measures that we have to implement in order to meet our Paris targets and our target of net zero by 2050. It is believed that the carbon pricing is only going to—

132 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 4:55:09 p.m.
Watch

I understand the hon. member would like to give a fulsome answer, but there is another question. I would ask her to give a very brief answer.

27 words

Ask

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/30/24 4:55:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will help us achieve one-third of Canada's emission reductions by 2030. We have a number of other measures in place that will help us reach the rest of our targets.

35 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/30/24 4:55:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are in a Parliament where certain political parties are actually competing to see who can do more to help the oil companies, which are making huge profits. I would like to know how my colleague can live with the fact that her government, in the last two budgets, proposed six tax credits that could cost taxpayers a total of $83 billion. That money will be given to the oil companies, which we have been talking about all day, with some feeling so sorry for them because they are being taxed so much.

96 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/30/24 4:56:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a question that many Davenport residents ask all the time. I will say, though, that I am very proud of our government. We have eliminated all efficient and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. I hope the member will be happy to know that.

46 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)

May/30/24 4:56:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Carleton on this opposition day. Before I begin, I want to salute the courage of my colleague from Davenport, who spoke right before me and whose office was vandalized, as well as that of her staff who had to see the photos and work in such an environment. I want to give my support to my colleague as well. We are meeting today to go over an opposition day motion. For Canadians who are watching, I always like to use this sort of thing as a teachable moment. When Canadians look at what the motion says, it sounds kind of interesting. It states, “That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day.” First of all, we would like to know where the members opposite came up with that number. In order for Canadians to save that kind of money, they would actually need to use 3,293 litres of gas. Summer vacation normally starts once school lets up, so let us say it is July and August, which is literally two months' time between now and Labour Day. In two months, in order to save that kind of money, based on the Conservatives' math, Canadians would have to drive more than 37,000 kilometres. I do not know about you, but I will not be driving 37,000 kilometres in two months, and I do not think any Canadian is going to be driving 37,000 kilometres in two months. Therefore the premise of the motion is factually incorrect. The motion also mentions the NDP-Liberal government. I have to say that there is no NDP-Liberal government, but we do have great colleagues across the way, and we are working together, which is what Canadians want us to do to help them and make things better for them. Therefore when I look at the motion and scratch its surface, we can see that it is virtually impossible. In my home province of Quebec, it would be even more than that, because there is not a price on pollution; there is a cap-and-trade program. I think of the Canadian families who are struggling with the cost of living. In the budget, we presented to Parliament measures to help Canadians when it comes to the cost of living. We are now offering modestly priced child care across Canada that is modelled after the program implemented in Quebec under Quebec's leadership. We have introduced programs for the purchase of heat pumps to reduce Canadians' demand for fuel. We provide rebates for Canadians who would like to change their form of heating and rebates for Canadians who would like to perhaps purchase a plug-in hybrid or an electric vehicle. We encourage Canadians to visit Canada, this wonderful place, but in order to do so, we cannot have a summer like last summer. Last year, Canadians faced the worst wildfire season in our recorded history. Over 15 million hectares burned, which is seven times more than the annual average. An area twice the size of Portugal went up in smoke, along with hundreds of family homes. We cannot afford to impose the high cost of climate inaction on Canadian youth. That is why we put a price on carbon pollution. As I mentioned, the provinces and territories are free to implement their own carbon pricing system. That is what Quebec, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories did. The federal backstop is in place in the provinces and territories that did not do that. The system is designed to be fair and affordable. Eight in 10 families get more money than they pay thanks to the Canada carbon rebate. The Canadian carbon rebate ensures that we fight climate change. In my home province, the citizens of Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne are absolutely committed to fighting climate change, and they want us to do so in the most cost-effective way, delivering hundreds of dollars every three months to Canadians residing in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies. Importantly, lower- and middle-income families benefit the most. Last summer we witnessed horrific scenes coming out of British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Over 200,000 Canadians were evacuated and eight firefighters were killed fighting wildfires. On top of that, we all saw the images. We were here in this very place, with the smoke that we could literally taste when we were walking outside. The smoke from the wildfires last year blanketed the entire east coast of the United States. People with asthma and other respiratory illnesses suffered greatly. The cost of inaction on fighting climate change is too large to bear. We must continue in every way possible to fight climate change. For the families who are planning their summer vacation, of course we want them to have the ability to take a vacation. That is why the Canada child benefit is indexed. That is why we put forward measures that will assist Canadians and their families to be able to take a much-needed vacation. We encourage Canadians to take the necessary downtime after working hard, and we are making sure that young Canadians too can continue to save up for their first home. We are putting measures forward in the budget to make sure that Canadians can reach their full potential. I am at a loss as to where the proposed number came from. I do not understand how the Conservatives can say that in two months, Canadians can drive 37,000 kilometres or that they would even want to. I just cannot support the motion. I welcome the feedback from the Conservatives on how they got to the number of $670, because I cannot figure out how they did, and I do not think they have been able to explain to us yet today in the debate how they got to that number. Let us be clear. I think we are all united here in terms of wanting every Canadian to have an opportunity to have some time off this summer. I think every Canadian wants that, and that is why we are making sure that the Canadian carbon rebate puts more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians where it applies in their jurisdiction. With that, I do want to say to Canadians that I hope they have a great summer holiday this year.

1129 words

Quebec

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

May/30/24 5:05:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way wants to know where we get numbers. I want to quote some numbers I have taken right from the public accounts. I believe my colleague across the way actually served on public accounts with me for a short bit. The government has given $277 million in direct subsidies right to Tesla over the last year and a half. That is over a quarter of a billion dollars. Elon Musk is worth $268 billion Canadian. He owns 20% of Tesla, so the government has paid Elon Musk, the world's richest person, $55 million directly, and this is right from the public accounts. Why is the member opposite happy to subsidize Elon Musk but will not give Canadian taxpayers 35¢ a litre off their gas for their summer driving?

136 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 5:06:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while my colleague is preparing her excellent answer to the question she was asked, I would like to request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 a.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.

44 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 5:06:17 p.m.
Watch

The hon. government House leader on a point of order.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 5:06:37 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the request is deemed adopted. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

28 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

May/30/24 5:06:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we adopted by unanimous consent that we could meet until midnight, I did not put on the record, but I would like to now, that I think there should be nursing stations available for those of us who work until midnight night after night, and that there should be very available places for at least quick naps to be able to continue our work. We do get elected to work, and we work hard, but we should not put our lives at risk.

86 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)

May/30/24 5:07:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I actually have not sat on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I did ask to be put on that committee when I first was elected because I thought it would be quite interesting, but I do not actually sit on that committee. With respect to the subsidizing of Tesla, I personally do not actually pay for the subscription to X. I am curious how many members opposite actually do.

72 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/30/24 5:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the member said, we had a taste over the past year of the frightening new reality brought about by climate change, with 15 billion hectares having burned down, as she mentioned. Does she not think that her government should change course when it comes to the oil industry, so that we can turn things around as quickly as possible? Obviously, it is the main cause of climate change.

71 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado

May/30/24 5:08:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hard work being done by SOPFEU to fight forest fires in Quebec. I want to tell my colleague that investing in clean energy is important too, like Hydro-Québec, which is doing an outstanding job. Quebec is a world leader in clean energy. I think that investing in wind turbines and solar energy is a good idea. I know that my colleague will say that Quebec is a leader in Canada and the world when it comes to clean energy.

89 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/30/24 5:09:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I concur that I have an element of confusion about what the Conservatives' intent really is here and how they measure people's needs. That being said, I know that climate change is having a huge impact on British Columbia. In my riding, what I have been hearing repeatedly from the tourism industry is that a lot of people are withdrawing their trips because they are afraid of forest fires. As we all know, part of British Columbia has already been on fire. People are scared they would be risking their life. That has really changed. I am actually supportive of carbon pricing, but I think it is one small step in moving toward climate safety, and we are far from that. I am just wondering whether the member has heard anything from the tourism industry in her riding. What next steps should we be taking, and we should be taking a great deal more, to combat the climate crisis?

162 words