SoVote

Feb/7/23 3:46:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is punitive. That is why we want to scrap it. People living in a rural area, heating their homes with propane and driving long distances to work are getting absolutely demolished by the carbon tax, and the Liberals will wax on, saying, “So what?” The carbon tax is designed to hurt rural Canadians, and it does. That is why we want to scrap it. It is an awful carbon tax. The Liberals should be embarrassed to keep propping it up. They should be taking responsibility for what they are doing to Canadian families and the affordability crisis. The carbon tax is one thing they could do to fix it, but they are so stubborn and ideological that they will not.

127 words

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

Feb/7/23 3:47:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres denounced the corporate greed of oil and gas companies, saying they are making outrageous profits on the backs of the poor. ExxonMobil amassed a $74‑billion net profit. Why are the Conservatives not proposing a tax on these enormously excessive profits?

49 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Feb/7/23 3:47:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member seems to not understand that oil and gas companies pay enormous amounts of taxes and they fund social programs and other things across the country. Is the member saying that when they have a good year we should tax them more? Is he saying that in a bad year the government should be paying those companies some money? If those companies have a good year, they pay a lot of taxes. If they have a bad year, they do not. That is how the system works. If he does not like it, maybe he should come up with a better system.

105 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/7/23 3:48:11 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, if this is really about tax fairness, why do the Conservatives not agree to tax the ultrarich, like Loblaws, which has profited millions while Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries?

32 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Feb/7/23 3:48:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all companies in our country pay taxes. When they have good years, they pay a lot of taxes. When they do not have good years, they pay very little taxes. That is how the system is absolutely designed. All companies should pay their fair share of taxes. If companies are engaging in profiteering, that should be examined. However, the tax system is pretty clear: If one makes money, one pays taxes.

73 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/7/23 3:48:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have an invoice in front of me from an aerial applicator for agricultural spraying services, which is good for the environment because it reduces compaction of the soil, allowing for higher yields. The bill is for $84,000 of which $7,000 is the carbon tax. It is making life unaffordable at every step of the supply chain. Would my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon comment on how charges like this make such a significant difference?

79 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Feb/7/23 3:49:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is right. Those are exactly the same charges that farmers in my riding pay for drying grain. Maybe the Liberal members do not understand that they have to dry grain. They pay enormous carbon taxes as a result of doing that. What happens then? The price of grain goes up. On whatever crop was being used, the price is going to go up. The carbon tax makes everything more expensive, and farmers do not get more money back than they pay in. The result is higher prices at the grocery store, families going to food banks and families being within $200 of not being able to make ends meet. The Liberals should really give Canadians a break and cut the carbon tax.

126 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Feb/7/23 3:50:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate on environmental and fiscal issues. Climate change is real. Humans contributed to climate change, so humans must contribute to reducing pollution around the globe. When I say humans, I am referring to everyone. I am referring to citizens, entrepreneurs, businesses, governments, states. I am referring to everyone. We must pitch in to reduce the environmental footprint of our actions in order to reduce pollution. The path the government has taken to address the problem of pollution and reduce pollution is taxation. The Liberals love to say that they are putting a price on pollution. In real terms, it is called the Liberal carbon tax. The minister was very proud to say earlier that this tax has only been in place since 2019. It has been around for almost four years, nearly half their time in power. That is not to mention that, starting in 2016, the government clearly stated that it was going to impose the Liberal carbon tax. It is time to take stock. What is the actual, concrete result of this Liberal carbon tax? Has pollution been reduced? The answer is no. This is why we do not like the Liberal carbon tax and want to put it aside. This is why we have a concrete plan to address the climate change challenges that we have to face and to be sure that we will have real results for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberal carbon tax is not delivering less pollution. It is not me saying that. It is the entire planet acknowledging it. Let us start at home. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has clearly stated that the implementation of the carbon tax, which will start to triple in April, has a direct impact on inflation. Everyone knows that the number one economic challenge for every Canadian family right now is inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the Liberal carbon tax drives inflation higher. Canadians need that like they need a hole in the head. The Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded in a study that Canadian families get back less than they pay in. The Liberal strategy was to say that they were putting a Liberal tax on carbon, but that they would give Canadians and families a rebate so they would come out even. That sounds great in principle. It sounds great in the classroom. It sounds great to spout high-minded principles and virtue signal. However, the reality, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is that families are paying more than they are getting back from the government. We know that, as of April 1, the government will begin tripling the carbon tax. That will have a direct impact on fuel, transportation, food prices and heating. I talked about the whole world recognizing what the Liberal government is doing. Let us see the facts. A report based on a study by the United Nations was tabled at COP27. In November and December, the entire planet gathered in Egypt for COP27. It is an odd place if ever there was one to talk about climate change, but it is not up to us to choose the location. It is up to the UN. A report was tabled in the first few days on the track record of the planet as a whole, on the efforts being made to combat pollution and climate change. This report assessed 63 countries. I have that document here. The first study that was done provides a clear picture of how countries performed when it comes to dealing with climate change. Canada, under this Liberal government, ranks 58th. We did not come up with this, the UN did. A panel of experts was created to analyze the 63 most developed nations in the world. Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries. These are people who have been constantly telling us for seven years now that “Canada is back”. They say that Canada is doing great, that we are making extraordinary efforts, that we have ambitious targets, that we are good for the environment. I would remind the House that Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. The Liberals have always been sanctimonious. That is what I had to say about tackling climate change. Concerning greenhouse gas emissions, Canada, under the current Liberal government, ranks 57th out of 63 countries. That is not as bad, since it has moved up by one spot. That is what Canada is like with the Liberal carbon tax. Concerning renewable energy, Canada ranks 52nd out of 63 countries. There are 51 countries that are more effective than this sanctimonious government. Finally, if we look at the evaluation of energy use, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government, ranks 63rd out of 63 countries. It is not the Conservatives saying so, it is the United Nations in a report tabled at COP27. The document concludes that, when it comes to climate change, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government that created the Liberal carbon tax, ranks 58th out of 63 countries. “Canada is back” said the Prime Minister when he was elected. Canada is way back eight years later; that is the truth. Those are the UN's rankings. Let me also remind the House that those folks over there got elected by saying that Canada was going to be a world leader in the fight against climate change. I remember one particular moment very clearly. The member for Papineau had not been Prime Minister for three months when he went to a conference in Toronto to lecture everyone. He said that, yes, for sure, Canada is back and that what matters is not just what is under our feet, but what is between our ears. He was proud to say those words, as though when we were in government, we did not care what people had between their ears. How arrogant. In fact, it is more than arrogant considering that, after eight years of a Liberal government, Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in the fight against climate change. None of the targets it set were met. Pollution was not reduced, despite the Paris Agreement. They said that the previous Conservative government's track record on the environment was abysmal, even though greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector were reduced by 2.2% during the eight years of our government. The Paris Agreement could have changed the world. What did the entire planet do in Paris in 2015? It used the exact same targets set by the Canadian Conservative government, to the decimal point. What did this government do with that target? It did nothing, zero. Out of about 200 countries, barely a dozen or so met the Paris target. Where does the Liberal Canada of this sanctimonious government rank? It is missing in action. It is not among those who achieved the goal of the Paris Agreement. This is typical Liberal virtue signalling. What are the results? That is why we see the Liberal decision to impose a tax as a tax plan, not a pollution reduction plan. In addition, the Liberals plan to impose their vision and their numbers on all the provinces, including on us, on Quebec. Quebec decided to join a carbon exchange. This proves that the federal government did not have to get involved, because the provinces could have done it if they wanted to. Prices were set, but the federal government decided it had the power to impose its own carbon price on the provinces whose system is different from the federal system. We will see in April, six months from now, a year from now, once the Liberal government has tripled the carbon tax, how the provinces respond. What will happen when the government increases the carbon tax? The provinces will be stuck with it and will not have the right to say a word about it. We will see what the Liberal government does with that. Our approach has always been clear. We want to use technology, not taxes, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone, all Canadians, individuals, businesses and governments, we all have to work together to reduce greenhouse gases using fiscal incentives, not punitive taxes. We also have to green-light green energy to make it more readily available to Canadians. What our leader said when he became the leader of the Conservative Party and the official opposition was absolutely right. He said: “Green light to green projects”. This is where we stand. We have a policy to help people, not to tax them.

1443 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 4:00:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The hon. member mentioned the UN, and he will recall the UN Kyoto climate accord, which the Conservatives cancelled. They not only did not meet their targets; they cancelled their targets. They cut $350 million from the environment and climate change budget. There was not an environmental program they met that they did not want to cancel. They did absolutely nothing for 10 long years. I am wondering if the hon. member could share with us if he is proud of the Conservative record and maybe hit the high points of the Conservative climate plan. I would be curious.

117 words

The Speaker

Feb/7/23 4:01:02 p.m.
Watch

Order. I am sure the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent can answer the question. He does not need any help. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

28 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/7/23 4:01:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I have had the great pleasure of working with my colleague on this committee. Yesterday morning, I had to express my point of view defending their policy. We have great communication with that and I enjoy it. It is a warm-up before we come in. In a few years, we will be in this position and we will appreciate the collaboration with the opposition at that time. Speaking of Kyoto, can the minister identify how many countries achieved the Kyoto agreement? There are not many. Maybe some countries liked the Paris Agreement, but again, the Liberals failed to achieve the target for the Paris Agreement. I intend to table in the House the 2023 COP27 report, which concludes that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in addressing climate change. It is the UN document. I am certain everyone will be willing to let me table it.

151 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 4:02:18 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the document? Some hon. members: No. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

36 words

All Topics

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

Feb/7/23 4:02:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I like you, sir. I like what you have to say, and you are a good Quebecker. I do not understand—

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 4:02:54 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member to address the Chair, not the member directly. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

25 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Feb/7/23 4:03:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I get too emotional. As I said, I really like the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I appreciate what he has to say, and I think he is a good Quebecker. I kind of understand the Conservative ideology, and I respect it, but I do not really buy into it. My colleague referred to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to know if he agrees with what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, that 80% of households are now receiving more money back in rebates than they are paying into the carbon tax. This includes both low- and medium-income households.

104 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/7/23 4:03:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles a lot too. I am certainly very proud to be a Quebecker, and I am also very proud to be a Canadian. He forgot that part. I am also convinced that there is a little Conservative in every good Quebecker. It depends on what we are talking about, of course. When it comes to the management of public funds, we pretty much agree. The hon. member raised a very important point. Our institutions are called upon to assess the impact of each policy. Sometimes the results are good. Sometimes they are not. We have to look at the reality of certain regions. I am not talking specifically about Quebec, because Quebec has its own carbon exchange system. This is proof that the provinces can be self-sufficient in this respect. The National Assembly demonstrated this in 2011-12, if memory serves, under Premier Jean Charest. Quebec decided to implement its own system, which is something the provinces could do, but the federal government decided to meddle and impose its own pricing system. In the places where the Liberal carbon tax applies, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that 60% of people were not receiving as much money as they were paying for the Liberal carbon tax.

219 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/7/23 4:05:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for what I think is a really important moment for Conservatives, and I hope they are listening. They are acknowledging the fact that climate change is real. That is a good place to start. In this place, I seek a consensus, I hope, on issues that are affecting everyday Canadians, and one of them is the environment. The other is the cost of living. There seems to be a red herring when we are talking about the carbon tax because we can in fact do both: We can ensure that we do good by Canadians by making sure we put a price on carbon and returning some of that to the Canadians who need it the most. However, it is not a silver bullet. I agree with the member that the government is failing our environment. It is failing, hands down. It is not a silver bullet and the Liberals are treating it as such. On the other hand, we have the cost-of-living crisis, and New Democrats fought in this House and tabled an amendment to make sure that we would tax excess profits and have windfall tax on corporations. Why did the member vote against it?

208 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/7/23 4:06:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important that every company pay its fair share. We will continue to fiercely criticize those who refuse to pay their fair share by evading taxes, which is totally unacceptable in our democracy.

36 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 4:06:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Catharines. Canadians are hurting. That is obvious. We see it every day on the news, and we hear about it in the House. While employment is strong, and this is not an insignificant positive, inflation is at its worst in 40 years. We have always had inflation. Every year there is inflation. Two per cent is inflation, but this inflation is obviously the worst we have seen in 40 years. That is a fact that is indisputable. We also have the first war in Europe in 78 years, and we have the most volatile climate ever. I will start my speech with a quote, if I may. It is a quote from a Canadian farmer by the name of David Coburn, who is helping put food on the tables of families across this great country. This is from a CBC article from November, just a couple of months ago. Mr. Coburn said, “This is going to drive inflation.... All of our food goes on our truck at some point in time so this is not gonna help the inflationary figures.” What was Mr. Coburn talking about? He was talking about the price of diesel, the fuel that keeps the global economy moving. Here again, I quote from the article from the CBC website, which says: Drivers may wince when the price of gasoline goes up, or decide not to drive if they can. But the trains, trucks, boats, and barges that keep the economy moving run on diesel — and they don't have that option. The article, from back in November, goes on to say: The average retail price of diesel in Canada has topped $2.40 a litre at various points this month, a previously unimaginable level that has many businesses scrambling to keep up. There are many reasons why it is happening, but the impact boils down to one basic thing: it's driving up the price of everything, and making inflation worse. What has been driving up the price of diesel? We know that shutdowns of refineries for maintenance have an impact on supply and the price of diesel in a market that is driven by demand and supply. For example, the Irving Oil refinery in Saint John saw a shutdown for maintenance recently in the fall, taking 300,000 barrels a day of supply off the market. Refinery shutdowns for maintenance happen all the time, but when they happen in a very tight market, then we can see very wide swings in the price of diesel and the price of gasoline because barrels that might otherwise be available to meet local needs are just not there. In this case, in November, in New Brunswick, and therefore in Canada, barrels that might otherwise be available to meet local needs were being diverted to the other side of the ocean. Again, I quote from the article, which is quoting a gentleman by the name of Patrick De Haan, a Chicago-based analyst with a website called GasBuddy.com. He says: Europe is trying to move away from Russian oil products like diesel fuel, and as a result of that, much of the product that could be imported into the Northeast or eastern coast of Canada, as well as the Northeastern U.S. is being pulled over there. Europe was essentially building stockpiles for the winter ahead, and that meant that, when the Irving Refinery shut down for maintenance, the market was very tight, and the price went up drastically. Another factor that has increased demand for oil and gas is the rebound in airplane travel. I will quote another analyst, Paul Pasco, who is with a firm called Kalibrate. He says in the article, “air travel getting back to pre-COVID levels isn't helping either.” He then said, “Diesel, kerosene or jet fuel, they're basically all the exact same part of the barrel, they're all what's known as the distillate barrels”. Therefore, we have lots of factors that are contributing, or have been contributing, to the very high price of diesel. The opposition will have us believe that all of these huge forces at play internationally are not really what is causing prices to go up. They contend that it is the price on carbon, but all experts will say, and I will quote a professor of economics at the University of Calgary, that the overwhelming dominant reason why prices are higher now compared to a couple of months ago is there are factors other than the price on carbon. Professor Trevor Tombe said that the federal carbon price adds 11¢ to the cost of each litre of gasoline, and added that the notion that the carbon tax is what is behind high gas prices is a misconception. He said, “While, you know, 11 cents a litre is a meaningful level overall, they don't drive the recent increases that we're seeing.... It's really about global oil prices, and that's really driven by things far beyond the government of Canada's control.” I do not know what they are talking about on the other side. I do not know what their researchers are telling them or why they are telling them what they are telling them, but they are invoking all the wrong factors to explain what is going on in the economy, and that is quite concerning for a party that claims it wants to govern the country. If Conservatives do not understand basic economics, how could they make big decisions? We know that the Leader of the Opposition holds Milton Friedman in very high esteem. One could say that he worships at the altar of Milton Friedman, and we know that he carries around under his arm a copy of Milton Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States. Let us see what Milton Friedman would say about this whole issue. The University of Chicago school of economics, where Milton Friedman was the top economist for many years, held a forum a few years ago called, “What Would Milton Friedman Do About Climate Change?” Former U.S. representative Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina, opened the discussion by playing a 1979 clip of Milton Friedman appearing on The Phil Donahue Show. Phil Donahue asked Milton Friedman, “Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?” Friedman replied, “Yes, there's a case for the government to do something. There's always a case for the government to do something about it.” He was basically saying that the market had broken down and was not operating efficiently, so something had to be done. What did he mean by saying the market was not operating efficiently? He said, referring to the cost of pollution: those costs are real, and they're not being reflected in the costs of that electricity or the tank of gas. Emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere does allow you to produce electricity more cheaply, but there's a whole other set of people who are being punished or penalized. It's a poor idea of economics. I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition read that quote by Mr. Friedman. He went on to say: What we need is an adjustment mechanism that will enable us to adapt to what happens as it develops. Everybody in this room knows there is such a system, namely the price mechanism. If we have a problem today, in the air, with pollution, it is solely in my opinion because that system has not been allowed to work. Then someone else—

1305 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 4:16:33 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up, but I am sure he will be able to continue during questions and comments. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

26 words

Abbotsford

SoVote

House Hansard - 155