44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 5:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech made a lot of sense to me, and I have not heard that from every speech in the House today. I wanted to express my appreciation for that.
One of the things that concerns me, and I think we share this concern, is that the loopholes in the carbon pricing system mean that oil and gas companies are paying a tiny fraction of the cost of their pollution. We know, for example, that Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price.
I am just wondering if he shares that concern about seeing a lot of money going toward these oil and gas companies as they are making huge profits and not really respecting everyday Canadians.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:49:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a good point.
She asked me whether I am concerned about so much money ending up in the oil companies' coffers. My answer is yes, absolutely. The government is taking our tax dollars and sending them to the oil companies.
Here are some figures on oil company profits in 2023.
Suncor made $2.8 billion in profits. Imperial Oil made $4.9 billion. Enbridge made $5.8 billion. Shell made $28 billion.
How could we not feel sorry for them? Those companies really need our money. I think we have the answer to that question.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:50:03 p.m.
- Watch
A brief question, only.
The hon. Minister of Environment.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:50:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his many very relevant answers to questions.
I would like to ask him the following question.
The claim is that this will cost the Canadian economy $25 million, but that does not take into account the annual benefits of investments made in the fight against climate change. That figure is $25 billion a year now. It also does not take into account the costs associated with climate change that will be avoided between now and 2030. That figure is $23 billion a year.
Would that not add up to two, almost three times as much as the Conservatives claim?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:50:42 p.m.
- Watch
The response will have to be brief.
The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:50:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my response will be very brief.
The minister just raised a good point. However, I also wonder about the cost of all these tax credits that the Liberal government is offering to the oil companies and all these subsidies in terms of the impact on climate change.
That is information that we would very much like to have. Perhaps our next opposition day could be on that issue.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who set the bar high, as usual. When we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, share our speaking time with each other, we always want to go first because we are all good and that puts pressure on the next person. I will try to make sure my speech is as good as my colleague's.
Today's motion is indeed repetitive, as my colleague mentioned, but it is quite simple. It calls for information. It is too bad that I cannot address the minister directly to ask him the question. I hope he will ask me or that he will want to participate in the exchange, but the first question that I will raise in the House is the following. Why did it take this motion for the document to be released? That bothers me tremendously.
What I find the most difficult about politics is not the long hours, the travel or the documenting work. It is working with so many elected officials who are not always working for the common good or who do not always seem to be doing so. There is a lot of partisanship in political parties in general. One might wonder why the Liberal Party did not make this study public. Is it because it confused its electoral interests with the interests of the public? I am throwing that question out there because it is important and because we have a responsibility here. However, not everyone lives up to that responsibility.
Today is another Conservative opposition day on the carbon tax where we are hearing nonsense. Earlier, a member even referred to the line of the report that gives the projected impact the federal carbon tax would have in 2030, if it applied in Quebec. The cost would be $5 billion. That number was used in question period today and members said that Quebec was losing $5 billion every year. What is that if not a cheap populist approach? I would invite parliamentarians to elevate the debate and show some discipline.
They got the documents. Now, they want something else, they want the notes and the emails. What will they then do with those? That question deserves some thought, considering how the tables obtained today were used. In very short order, the information in the documents was cherry picked rather than subjected to serious analysis. What would happen with the emails and briefing notes? It is a worthwhile question.
I want to reassure everyone, however, that the Bloc Québécois has always supported transparency, and that we are not afraid of information. We want to know how measures like the federal carbon tax will affect the environment, even though the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. We know that we are here, in the federal Parliament and that we are called upon to deal with things happening in the other provinces now and then. That is fine. We have to know the repercussions.
However, we should also find out how much it costs not having measures in place. How much does insurance cost? In recent years, the cost of insurance has risen by tens of billions of dollars. There have been increases of over $30 billion. Do the claims for natural disasters not cost anything? I did not realize that. The floods and torrential rains that affected our farming operations, did that not cost anything?
Many businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. This week I received a delegation of produce growers. According to what these Quebec strawberry and raspberry producers were telling me, dozens of members have announced that they will not be farming this year, because they lost too much last year and the government programs are not working.
They are now telling themselves that climate change is not going to stop, because there is a group of real winners promising to abolish the measures that can help mitigate climate change. It is rather astonishing. That same group of winners actually includes a decent number of elected representatives in Quebec, who agree to speak 9.5 times out of 10 on measures that do not apply to their constituents. That is what amazes me the most.
For a year I have been watching members from Quebec rise in the House and get all worked up over the big bad federal government, over the carbon tax. They say that our farmers are suffering. That does not apply in Quebec. Are they not supposed to be working for their constituents? I keep asking questions. I do nothing but ask questions.
To inform my Conservative colleague who is rising while I am in the middle of making a speech and who seems to be unaware, Quebec is covered by a carbon pricing system called the carbon exchange in association with California. This represents a much bigger market than Canada can offer, by the way. These measures are very effective. What we are seeing in Quebec is that having those measures ends up being less expensive for people and is having an impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Maybe the people in the other provinces who are unhappy with the big bad federal carbon tax should look at what Quebec has put in place, as they are doing on child care and as they want to do on dental care and on pharmacare. Let us look at what Quebec has been doing since 2014. We are still ahead on this. Let us look at what Quebec has done and how this has affected Quebeckers. Maybe some will wish they got on board at the time, but no, because these people want pollution to be free.
I have a lot to say. I am going to run out of time again. However, I want to raise one important point today, concerning the much-touted Bill C‑234. We, the Bloc Québécois, agreed to support this bill even though it did not apply in Quebec. We did so because we thought it seemed reasonable to give people who produce food credits for grain drying and for certain buildings. The bill came back from the Senate in early January. My first speech in 2024 was about Bill C‑234. It had come back with amendments. Instead of returning it to the Senate and having it come back or not come back, or leaving it stuck there without making any progress, we thought that since it had something to offer grain farmers, that it could give them the credit for drying grain, we should support it. I understand the Conservatives' reaction. They initially said no because they wanted the bill to stay in its original form. That is fine; it is part of the debate. However, once the debate ends, voting has to follow.
Now, I am going to talk about hypocrisy. It is June. We are coming up to the summer adjournment and we still have not voted on Bill C-234. As I said earlier, the first speech that I gave in early January was about this bill. Sometimes bills stall in the Senate, but that is normally not the case in the House of Commons. How does someone stall a bill? It is easy. Every time the government wants to put it back on the agenda, people keep rising to fill the time so that we cannot finish the debate and can never vote on the bill. One has to wonder why the Conservatives would want to avoid voting on their own bill. It is because they are getting political mileage out of it. They talk about the bill at least 12 times a day. If we do not vote on the bill, then they can call the government incompetent, unfair and mean. However, they could vote on the bill now and give grain farmers the credit next fall.
I hope there are farmers listening, and I hope they realize that their Conservative MPs are working in the interest of getting themselves elected, not in the interest of our farmers. That really irks me. It grates on me. It gets under my skin when MPs put their energy into scoring political points, posting clips on social media and launching fundraising campaigns. They are raising money. The people who donate that money do not have all the information. I just gave them all the information. The people who are up in arms about the carbon tax are currently blocking Bill C‑234. So much for integrity. So much for noble intentions to help our farmers.
Earlier, I heard a member say that this is why grocery prices have gone up. We know there are all kinds of reasons for that. As my colleagues said earlier, the impact on Quebec is minimal. Yes, inflation is high, and there are other reasons for that. The member stands to answer questions, and he says the answer is no, it is the carbon tax. He can say that a dozen times, but that will never make it true. I would like MPs to be a little more diligent. Let us get serious about working for the common good. I think that would be a good thing.
1564 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize for the interruption.
I missed the earlier vote on the third reading of Bill C-70. I humbly ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow my vote to be recorded as in favour.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:01:42 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:02:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague about making the carbon tax discussion partisan.
I am really quite disappointed with the Bloc Québécois and how they think this does not impact them and does not impact the people of Quebec. The carbon tax knows no boundaries, just like carbon emissions. People from Quebec still have to buy energy from other provinces, other entities, actually. When farmers have to buy propane from Ontario, they have to pay a carbon tax. This is directly impacting the people in Quebec.
I wish to God they would understand that, and that this has a very severe impact on farmers right across the country, including in Quebec.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:03:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to try to show restraint.
This is astounding. I hope my colleague has put his earpiece in to understand what I am about to say. The Bank of Canada has analyzed the impact of the carbon tax, and it is 0.02%. The carbon tax has a very minimal impact on Quebec. It is very minor.
I would like to inform my colleague that Quebec has its own system, known as the carbon exchange, which also has a certain economic impact. However, this system reduces gas emissions and saves money in the long term on climate disasters.
What I find disappointing is hearing other people say they are disappointed in the Bloc Québécois when, as I explained earlier, we were very reasonable when we agreed to an exemption for grain drying, even though it does not apply in Quebec. Those folks refuse to support it. My colleague certainly did not mention that. I find that disappointing.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:04:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, please excuse my French, but I am practising.
I like what my colleague said about transparency. I too think the government needs to be more open.
What steps does he think Parliament should take to achieve that?
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:04:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for making an effort to speak French.
I would say that every elected member could make the effort to properly read the documents they are given. The Bloc Québécois is the third-largest political party, and we have a whole research department. Our researchers are brilliant and work very hard. They carry out analyses and give us a really detailed background document before each debate. That is why we sound so smart in the House of Commons.
I find it hard to believe that the government and official opposition do not have their own research departments that are just as big, if not bigger. This is one of those times when we doubt their integrity.
I would advise my colleagues to read the documents and to try to find arguments that align with their political views, but to please not make them up.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:05:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I get started, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.
The carbon tax cover-up continues. Canadians already know that the carbon tax is driving up the cost of living. It is increasing the cost of gas. It is increasing the cost of groceries. It is increasing the cost of home heating. Everything Canadians buy is more expensive because of the carbon tax. No matter how the Liberals try to spin it, we know that most Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back in these phony rebates.
The Liberals do not like talking about the carbon tax anymore, because they know it does not work. That is because the carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. In fact, the Liberal environment minister actually admitted that the government does not measure the emissions reduction results of the carbon tax. In other words, the Liberals do not measure for results. We know why the Liberals do not measure the results of the carbon tax. It is because there is nothing to show for it.
Since the last carbon tax hike, Canada dropped four rankings in climate change performance, falling to 62 out of 67 countries. Canadians also learned that emissions went up in 2022, despite the Prime Minister's plan to quadruple the carbon tax. Even Canada's environment commissioner revealed that the Liberals are not on track to meet their own emissions reductions target. Despite their damning record, the Liberals are plowing ahead with their plan to quadruple the carbon tax.
The NDP-Liberal government is plowing ahead with its plan to quadruple the carbon tax on Canadians. In fact, the Prime Minister's radical environment minister refuses to tell Canadians if his government will raise the carbon tax further than their current plan to quadruple it.
I asked the environment minister at committee, “Has your government decided whether it will increase the carbon tax over $170 a tonne past 2030? Give me a yes or no.” The environment minister had the audacity to respond with, “I'm not obliged to answer yes or no to those questions.” That is unbelievable.
If the government is re-elected, I have no doubt it will go beyond the plan to quadruple the carbon tax. After all, the former Liberal minister, Catherine McKenna, lied to Canadians in the 2019 election when she promised the carbon tax would not go up. During the 2019 election, she said, “The price will not go up.” That was when the carbon tax was at $20 a tonne. Now the Prime Minister is increasing the carbon tax to $170 a tonne.
Canadians will not be fooled by the Liberals in the next election. That is because the next election will be a carbon tax election where Canadians will choose between common-sense Conservatives who will axe the tax or the costly coalition that will quadruple the tax.
Do members remember when the Liberals promised Canadians their government would be “open by default”? The Prime Minister promised Canadians his government would be the most open and transparent government in history. “Sunny ways”, he said. Today, we find the government caught in another carbon tax cover-up.
Canada's watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, revealed that the Liberals were hiding a secret report from Canadians. Not only did we learn that the Liberals were keeping the internal carbon tax report a secret from Canadians, but we also learned that they placed a gag order on Canada's budget watchdog. Yes, the Liberals silenced the Parliamentary Budget Officer with a gag order, preventing him from speaking about the damning piece of evidence.
We must also ask ourselves why a government would hide its own economic analysis of the carbon tax. Well, now we know. After Conservatives were about to force the Liberals to release the report, the Liberals panicked and shared some information with the taxpayer-funded CBC. The CBC revealed that the government's carbon tax analysis proves that the carbon tax will lower GDP, gross domestic product, and harm Canada's national economy. According to the article, the carbon tax “is expected to reduce national GDP.”
That is what the government's very own carbon tax analysis says. Now we know why the Liberals placed the Parliamentary Budget Officer under a gag order. The carbon tax will cost Canadians $30.5 billion by 2030, but Canadians already knew that the carbon tax was damaging the economy. Canada already had the worst GDP growth of any G7 country in 2015. Canada's economic growth is projected to be the worst in nearly 40 advanced economies for this decade and for 30 more years to come. It is astounding.
Canada has lost $460 billion in investment to the United States, and now we are seeing the consequences. Canadians cannot afford groceries. Canadians cannot afford gas. Canadians cannot afford to heat their homes. Things were not like this nine years ago. Things were not like this before the Prime Minister took office, that is for sure.
This is not the first time the Liberals have been caught in a carbon tax cover-up. My Conservative colleagues and I on the environment committee demanded that the Liberals release the emissions reduction data to prove that the carbon tax reduces emissions. The environment committee ordered the production of the government's emissions reduction data to see if the Liberals had any proof the carbon tax actually reduces emissions. It makes sense.
The first time we did this, the Liberals insulted the committee and sent us a screenshot of the government website. The second time we ordered this information, the Liberals sent us an 18-page draft paper that was not even written by the government. It was so bad that the environment committee passed a third motion ordering the government's carbon tax emissions reduction data. We demanded that the government prove its carbon tax reduces emissions. Every single time we ordered this information, the government defied the committee and did not provide it. It could not prove whether its own carbon tax reduces emissions.
Even the Liberal's hand-picked chair of the environment committee stated, “My understanding—and maybe I'm wrong—is that there is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in X amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I don't even think that's possible, quite frankly.” The Liberals and the NDP continue to hike the carbon tax, increasing the cost on gas, groceries and home heating on Canadians. Never has it become clearer that the carbon tax is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan.
The Liberals are also hiding the truth about another so-called environmental policy. A few years ago, the Liberals quietly announced an $8-billion program called the net-zero accelerator fund. They told Canadians that this $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund was needed to reduce emissions. The Liberals claimed that they could reduce emissions by giving away tax dollars to Canada's largest emitters in exchange for a commitment to reduce emissions, but now we know the $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund is also a complete scam.
In fact, Canada's environment commissioner revealed that 70% of the companies received money without any commitment to reduce emissions. What a farce. I asked the environment minister's top official what the emissions reduction target was for this $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund. He did not know. The environment minister's top official would not say how many emissions an $8-billion emissions reduction program was supposed to reduce. According to the government, the emissions reduction target of the net-zero accelerator slush fund is protected under cabinet confidence. How convenient. While the government gives away free cash to Canada's largest emitters, it hikes its costly carbon tax on Canadians.
On November 4, 2015, Canadians received a letter. It was addressed to “My dear friends”. The letter read, “Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen. That is why we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in Ottawa. Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve—you.” That letter was signed by the Prime Minister.
It is time for the Prime Minister to heed his own words.
1454 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:15:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I take umbrage at my colleagues' characterization of what I said about calculating emissions from the price on carbon. The Conservatives clipped what I said in committee and put it on Twitter, and I got some attention in my riding for that, which I appreciate because people pay attention when something is on Twitter. However, what I was saying is that the reductions in emissions from the price on carbon are calculated as part of a modelling exercise, which is analogous to the unemployment rate. When we come out with an unemployment rate every month, it is not as though we have asked all 40 million Canadians, “Did you get a job this month or did you not get a job?” The number is arrived at through modelling, sampling and statistical methods. I would ask the member to be clear about that.
However, my question is the following: The other side says that the price on carbon is damaging the economy, but today there was a headline in The Globe and Mail saying, “Household wealth jumps to record” high. It rose by nearly $550 billion during the first quarter of 2024. I know the opposite side likes correlations, but—
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:17:18 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:17:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chair of the environment committee, for coming out and having this debate today.
I am glad the member brought up the environment committee because the other thing is that we are always trying to get to the bottom of this. The Liberals say that they are reducing emissions, so we are simply asking them to prove it.
We had asked a very direct question in environment committee. We asked if the government measures the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from carbon pricing. Can members guess what the answer was? It was that the government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing. If we do not measure, there is no result. It is pretty simple math.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:18:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to repeat my colleague's last sentence. He said that if we do not measure, there is no result. He is right. We have to measure.
If there is one thing the Conservatives are right about today, it is that we need information. We voiced our agreement right from the start. Parliamentarians need information to make sound decisions.
Does my colleague agree with me that just knowing information on the economic impact of the carbon tax or other measures is not enough? Does he agree that we also need information on the cost of climate change and natural disasters? Should we not know how much more money ordinary people have to pay for their insurance, which is getting a lot more expensive? Should we not also consider the fact that our farmers are stuck in a shocking state of uncertainty, without any appropriate programs?
Does he agree that we need to reflect on all these measures, be consistent and try to reduce pollution and mitigate economic impacts? Does he agree with that? Is he interested in the impact of global warming or not?
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:19:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am totally interested. I farmed up until 2019. I am a lifelong farmer. I lived every day with climate change. I called it “weather” at the time.
The problem is that I do not have this long timeline and bottomless taxpayer pocket to make a living like the government does. It keeps on insulting Canadians and taxing them until they cannot make a living. What is going on, and how this government is continuing to drive farmers out of business because of its carbon tax and make everything unaffordable to even make a living in this country, is ridiculous, and this member should be more aware of that.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:20:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talks about the costs to the Canadian economy, but surely he knows that research has shown that there could be up to a $38-trillion cost to the global economy from climate change. The cost of climate change is wildly larger, and the impact on farmers, families and individuals in our country is going to be very severe.
What is the Conservative plan on dealing with the extraordinary cost of climate change? What will it cost our economy, our farmers and our families?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
