SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Jun/13/24 11:35:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask you, as the Chair, if you could direct the member to address the motion before the House.

22 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/13/24 11:35:56 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that, when they are giving their speeches, they have quite a bit of latitude, but they must speak to the motion. I am sure the hon. member will circle back to the motion before the House. The hon. member for Jonquière.

48 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/13/24 11:36:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us be patient. I am getting there. Getting back to carbon pricing, Derek Evans, the former CEO of MEG Energy, is now the executive chair of Pathways Alliance, the largest representative of the oil sands industry. What did Mr. Evans say? He said that the advice he would give to the opposition leader is that the carbon policy will be absolutely essential for maintaining our position on the world stage. We cannot make this stuff up. The representative of the oil industry is giving lessons to the leader of the official opposition on climate change. He tells him that if we want to reduce our carbon footprint, then pricing is essential. Canada will not be competitive if we do not move forward with carbon pricing in the global economy. The oil industry's representative is giving lessons to the leader of the official opposition. I am not making this up. My mischievous colleague from Rivière-du-Nord asked the leader of the official opposition a question about Derek Evans. I want to read the response of the leader of the official opposition. He said, “he sounds like another useless lobbyist saying stupid things.” That is what the leader of the official opposition said about Derek Evans, the same person his party invited to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I can elaborate on this during questions and comments.

235 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/13/24 11:38:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. Today's discussion is very strange. When it comes to the climate crisis, the Conservatives are a bunch of conspiracy theorists. That being said, I am concerned about the Liberal Party's position. The government invested a lot of money in the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This will result in a massive increase in greenhouse gases. Why is the government supporting the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline and promoting the tar sands during a climate crisis?

90 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/13/24 11:39:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. He is absolutely right. When it comes to oil and gas, I find the Liberals are just Conservatives with a complex. They are trying to hide things. Earlier, the Minister of Environment was saying that we were the first country to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels. The devil is in the details. What the government wanted to do was eliminate inefficient funding for fossil fuels. When you ask the government what inefficient support for fossil fuels is, they do not know. We have a long way to go. My colleague is absolutely right.

122 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/13/24 11:39:50 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the motion itself, literally minutes, maybe even seconds, before the opposition leader moved the motion to compel the production of documents, the government reluctantly, at the very last second, dropped an 80-page report. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has had to resort to the broken and completely chaotic ATIP system to try to get basic information from the government to do his job. Does the member support the government's penchant for secrecy? Does he not support parliamentarians using the tools available to them to compel honesty from a government that promised to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history?

106 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/13/24 11:40:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is precisely it. I want members of Parliament to have access to as much information as possible before making decisions. The gist of my speech earlier was that this information has to be used in a rational manner, which the Conservative Party is not doing right now. When a leader says that people are requesting medical assistance in dying because they have no food to eat, that is not rational. When a leader says that we can catch lightning to light up a room, that is not rational. When an opposition leader says that you can weld two pieces of metal together with your hands, that is not rational. What I have this to say to my Conservative colleagues is that, yes, we need information, but we need to interpret it rationally.

135 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/13/24 11:41:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague asked us to give him an opportunity to address the Leader of the Opposition's comments on the Liberal-paid lobbyist who was invited to a Conservative event. I would like to hear more about that.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/13/24 11:41:49 a.m.
Watch

I will give the hon. member the opportunity to ask her question, but I would like to remind everyone that questions and debates should really be pertinent to the motion itself. I am certain that the hon. member for Jonquière will take that into consideration in his answer. The hon. member for Jonquière.

57 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/13/24 11:42:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the close of my remarks I was simply pointing out that the Conservatives' motivations when it comes to carbon pricing are to support the oil and gas industry. It was surprising, therefore, to see the leader of the official opposition rise and say that the chief representative of the oil and gas industry is, in fact, a useless lobbyist who says stupid things. I have to wonder whether the Conservative Party is changing its tune. Have its members had an epiphany? Will they suddenly believe in climate warming and realize that the oil and gas sector is responsible for much of it? That is how I wanted to close my remarks.

114 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Jun/13/24 11:43:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for having gone before me and raised so many examples of the sophistry exhibited recently by the Conservative Party. It was magnificent. I would just point out that he spoke about the motion more than did the member for Carleton, who is after all the motion's sponsor. The motion seeks to make public certain documents. Something rather comical took place at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts this week. The Conservative Party asked the deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to provide the documents that Environment Canada had provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Let us just say that there was a kerfuffle between the Privy Council representative, who was in attendance, and the Environment Canada representatives who had said at the start that these were confidential Cabinet documents that could not be made public. Then they walked this back, because these documents had not been sent to cabinet and were therefore not confidential cabinet documents. This excuse did not hold water. Then they hemmed and hawed, claiming that the figures had not been vetted. It was all very wishy-washy. Clearly, they had been instructed not to release these figures, which is a problem in itself. We are in agreement on that. Something else I found funny was that right before the member for Carleton began to speak, the government decided to release these figures, at the request of journalists, so that they could be accessed. It is nice to finally be able to speak today about what is contained in these figures. In all likelihood, the Conservatives were expecting to find an economic disaster and to be able to say that the carbon tax would create an economic disaster and that Canada's economy would crumble, just like the economy of all the countries that have put a price on pollution. Quebec's economy has completely crumbled, right? No, on the contrary, putting a price on pollution is a useful tool for those who believe in climate change. The question we must ask is, does the Conservative Party believe in climate change? That is another story. According to the numbers released, by 2030, greenhouse gas emissions should be down by 80 million tonnes. This means that we will be able to prevent emitting 11% of the greenhouse gases that Canada is expected to emit by 2030. The trade-off is that GDP is expected to fall by about $20 billion. However, this $20-billion drop in GDP does not include the positive side of a carbon tax, in other words, the new jobs created, the businesses encouraged to develop green technologies and the clean economic growth that would occur. That is the goal of transforming an economy into a green economy. That is what these numbers show. The reason the member for Carleton did not refer to the numbers he so desperately wanted to see is that they do not substantiate what the Conservative Party has been trying to show for ages now, which is that implementing the carbon tax will lead to some sort of terrible disaster. Quite the opposite is true. I will give another little lesson in economics, and I will do so as long as the Conservatives continue to dilly-dally and spread disinformation in the House. The economic and societal costs of climate change can easily be quantified. Let us start with the cost of climate change on the health of Quebeckers and Canadians. Obviously, we are seeing more and more heat waves, which will impact the mortality rate. That is a cost. Climate change will also impact allergies because of a major increase in pollen. We are seeing it. The season is longer and there is more pollen. That is going to bother people. That is a cost because it will be harder for people to go to work and they will not feel like working as much. There will be an economic cost to this drop in productivity over the long spring and summer season. These are direct costs of climate change. One last cost is the cost of zoonotic diseases, which are diseases that are transmitted through a vector, such as ticks. Lyme disease is a good example, as is the West Nile virus. As a result of climate change, species like the ticks that transmit Lyme disease and the mosquitoes that transmit the West Nile Virus are increasingly migrating north to Canada, so there are going to be a lot more cases of zoonotic diseases. If Lyme disease is not treated quickly, it can produce a wide range of symptoms and even lead to death. These are the impacts of climate change. Let us talk about another sector: infrastructure. Do I need to remind the House of Commons once again that forest fires and floods will have a huge impact on society and the economy? I could also talk about permafrost. We know that housing is a huge problem for indigenous people. Climate change is making it even worse, because the ground is changing and thawing, degrading the structural integrity of homes. This means more repairs, which means higher costs. The federal government is totally incapable of providing housing on reserves. We know this because the Auditor General identified it as a major problem. Climate change has many consequences. I will give a final example. Obviously, I could spend my entire 10 minutes listing examples. Let us talk about erosion. Rising water levels are causing more and more shoreline erosion. There are companies in the Magdalen Islands that will literally fall into the water unless something is done. They need to be moved. Sometimes, an entire factory needs to be moved. That costs money. If everyone could accept the premise that climate change exists, that would be a good start. We need to do something, to put a price on pollution in order to counter climate change. That is something the Conservatives were in agreement with barely two and a half years ago, during the 2021 campaign. Now, suddenly, they no longer agree. It is a shift that may have something to do with the populism of the current leader. They could at least agree that we need to do something using existing economic tools. There are tools that already exist, such as the carbon tax and Quebec's emissions cap-and-trade system. Let us take it one step at a time. First, can we all agree that we need to do something using existing economic tools? Then there are the incentives and disincentives that can be created. The carbon tax is a disincentive, meaning it taxes polluters. The cap-and-trade system is an incentive, where emissions are exchanged between different stakeholders, particularly those with different types of economies. Let me take two minutes to explain how the cap-and-trade system between Quebec and California works. It works because it is easier for California to reduce GHG emissions. Industries in California have lower abatement costs. That is an economics term. It means that, for the same amount of money, it costs less to reduce GHGs in California than in Quebec. I am disappointed that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent cannot hear my speech today. I hope he is listening. It is not true that the cap-and-trade system is causing a flight of capital. All it means is that, if we believe in the need to reduce GHGs, it cost less to do so by investing that money in reducing GHGs in California than it would to reduce GHGs in Quebec. It is a quid pro quo. That is a basic economic principle. The economic tools are working. Quebec's GHG emission cap-and-trade system is working. GHG emissions are lower than expected in Quebec. Moreover, Quebec's economy has obviously not collapsed. It is working. By moving this motion, the Conservatives were likely trying to spread disinformation again. That is a real problem. It prevents us from having a reasonable debate on reasonable issues like the carbon tax, which is an idea that should normally work. The Liberal Party has unfortunately mismanaged the issue, but the Conservatives are spreading outright disinformation, which is bad for the public. Instead of focusing on the tramway in Quebec City, why does the Leader of the Opposition not talk a bit more about what the carbon tax really is? Why does he not simply state the facts, the truth, about what the carbon tax actually does for people? As a final point, I have a message for the public servants who were so reluctant to share these figures with the public. I believe the public servants when they say that they are working hard, that they want to do a good job when they go to work. However, they are caught between the Liberal Party, which does not necessarily believe in transparency, and the Conservative Party, which is spreading disinformation. Public servants need to remember that they do not work for the Liberal Party. They work for the public. Public servants work for Quebeckers and Canadians. It is important that they grasp the important principle of transparency in a democracy and live according to that principle. Public servants who live in Quebec are lucky, because they have a third option, the responsible option. They can vote for the Bloc Québécois in the next election.

1577 words

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

Jun/13/24 11:53:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about misinformation that Conservatives were spreading and seemed to question why, but the answer to that question is quite obvious. The Leader of the Opposition likes to spread misinformation because he sees political opportunity from it, but what he cannot debate is the data that was released today. The data that was released today categorically shows that the price on pollution, the carbon tax, is now lowering emissions by 25 million tonnes per year and that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off as a result of the rebate that they receive as opposed to what they pay. Would the member agree with that factual information?

112 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Jun/13/24 11:54:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is nice to get a question and an answer at the same time. I am just going to qualify what my colleague said. Those figures are one of the reasons provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada. These figures should be taken with a grain of salt. Saying that 25 million tonnes of greenhouse gases will be prevented is just a projection. Projections are not necessarily facts. This kind of information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. This applies to both sides of the House. On the one hand, the Conservatives should accept that the carbon tax has a cost associated with it, but that the benefits ultimately outweigh that cost. A simple cost-benefit analysis would demonstrate that. On the other hand, the Liberal Party should not want to hide these numbers because it is afraid of how they might be interpreted, nor should it be claiming victory now, when only a few hours ago it did not want this information to be public.

172 words

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Jun/13/24 11:55:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke a bit about contrasting the government's carbon tax with the cap-and-trade system and which is a more efficient policy. On this side of the House, Conservatives believe in technology and working with industry and innovators to help ensure that green technology and green alternatives can be improved to a point where they are more accessible, affordable and attainable for people across the country, including in northern and rural remote areas. Would the member not agree that focusing on technology would be a more efficient way to find green alternatives than the current government's carbon tax approach that is just making everything more expensive and punishing people for heating their homes, putting gas in their tanks or just trying to feed their families?

131 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Jun/13/24 11:56:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, technology and green technologies are obviously the way of the future. That said, how are these technologies going to be funded? The whole purpose of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is to collect money to be able to fund these future technologies. It is amazing to me that the Conservative Party talks about new technologies but does not realize that money is not going to fall from the sky to pay for them. How do the Conservatives plan to do that, especially if they vote against progressive principles such as raising the capital gains tax? Where are they going to find that money?

109 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/13/24 11:56:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government gave $34 billion to the TMX pipeline, but what it does not talk about is that it is so over-budget that no oil company can use it because of the toll charges that have to be charged per barrel of oil. The Canada Energy Regulator had capped the toll charges at 22¢ on every dollar so that 78¢ was going to be paid by taxpayers. Now Liberals are saying they are going to increase it to just under 50¢ per dollar. In what credible world is it that the taxpayers of Canada will have to pay at least 50¢ on every dollar to ship raw bitumen to the coast on behalf of companies that are making record profits? This is the biggest scam and subsidy that I have ever heard of in promoting the burning of our planet, and yet the Minister of Environment is going along with it. I wonder what the member thinks of this.

166 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Jun/13/24 11:57:50 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it gives me the opportunity to demonstrate how the Liberal government is like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On the one hand, it is acting in good faith, it is making amazing plans for the transition and it wants to tax carbon, but on the other hand, it is still giving tens of billions of dollars to the most polluting industry in Canada. That is a serious problem. Is this greenwashing? We are not sure.

85 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/13/24 11:58:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre regarding the recent comments made by the hon. member for Saskatoon West. I understand you are currently considering this. I would like to urge you to give this question strong consideration. While the member for Saskatoon West has appropriately apologized for his original statement, I believe the member for Winnipeg Centre has raised an important, unresolved issue with respect to how the record is modified in this place. Specifically, when speaking of an indigenous person, the record was changed from “because of his racial background” to “regardless of his racial background.” This fundamentally alters the meaning of what was said. As the Speaker recently stated, “it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in this House.” As the member for Winnipeg Centre has noted already, from time to time members seek unanimous consent of the House to correct the record. This was not the case here. It would seem to me that this would be an appropriate option that would actually follow the practices of the House. For this reason, I hope you give this question of privilege appropriate consideration.

216 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/13/24 12:00:01 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for the additional information, and it certainly will be taken into consideration as we deliberate on this matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.

36 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/13/24 12:00:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member across the way for his intervention, as I have given. This is a very significant, serious matter in the House. The member for Saskatoon West has made similar comments in the past. However, I will not go into those comments. It is important we have trust in the blues and have trust in Hansard, and that members cannot just alter the record to avoid accountability and responsibility, particularly when making blatantly racist comments in the House.

85 words