SoVote

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

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member quoted Milton Friedman. Of course, that member, being a member of the Liberal Party, is a great disciple of John Maynard Keynes, who used to promote spending as a way out of governments' problems and spending as a way of getting an economy back on track. Unfortunately, it is spending that has gotten our economy off track and into an inflationary spiral. Will that member not admit that the spending his government undertook in Canada has driven inflation to 40-year highs and has caused the current unaffordability crisis in Canada? Will he now, at least, admit that?

105 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Feb/7/23 4:17:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the policies the government implemented over the last two years did not cause the price of food to go up. They put food on the table for Canadians. John Maynard Keynes's words of wisdom still ring true today in times of crisis. John Maynard Keynes said that the economy will adjust over the long term. An economy will always adjust if there is massive unemployment, as unemployment will be absorbed over the long term, but he said, “In the long run, we are all dead”. That is a quote from John Maynard Keynes, and it means we should not wait for the long term. If there is a crisis today, we should take the measures that are going to alleviate the crisis and alleviate human suffering today.

132 words

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

Feb/7/23 4:18:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleague that ExxonMobil raked in $74 billion in profits. That is an outrage, yet the government is not lifting a finger to get any of that $74 billion back. That is the problem. The carbon tax is not a problem for individuals, it is a problem for businesses. Small- and medium-sized businesses are being penalized, compared to large corporations that are prospering and benefiting from carbon tax exemptions and programs. How can he justify that? I would ask my very dear colleague to explain how that is justified.

98 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Feb/7/23 4:19:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is true that profits in a given sector go up and down. What should we do? Should we change the tax rate every month to reflect changes in corporate revenues and profits? No, that is not the way to run an economy. I agree that oil companies' profits have increased a lot. However, it is important to encourage these companies to invest in technologies that will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions so that we can produce oil in the greenest way possible, because we will always need to produce oil for various products.

97 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/7/23 4:19:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, New Democrats support putting a price on pollution, but the Liberals' carbon pricing system lets big polluters off the hook. Under their output-based pricing system, Canada's biggest polluters pay the lowest carbon tax rate. These loopholes mean that oil and gas companies only pay a tiny fraction of the cost of their pollution. Of their emissions, 80% to 90% are exempt. For instance, Suncor only pays about one-fourteenth of the full carbon price, and we on this side think loopholes need to be closed so that the oil and gas sector pays what it owes. Does my hon. colleague not agree that these loopholes need to be closed so that the oil and gas industry pay their fair share? Does he think it is also time for hard caps to be introduced on the oil and gas sector so that we can make sure we meet the carbon emission targets we have committed to internationally?

160 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Feb/7/23 4:20:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I read just yesterday that Canada is the only oil-producing nation that is bringing in a cap system on methane, which is a very powerful greenhouse gas. It is 30 times more powerful and damaging than carbon dioxide. As such, we are at the forefront, and we are putting in a cap. We are looking at doing so on methane. It is a challenge because we need to have the technology available that can really pinpoint where the methane is being released, and that is through satellite technology and so forth. There is still a lot of work to do in that area.

106 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 4:21:35 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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

61 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 4:22:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we are debating this motion on February 7. I think it would have been more interesting to debate this motion on February 2, which is Groundhog Day. We are at it again and again and again with the Conservative Party, which denies, denies, denies climate change and its impacts. It will come as no surprise to the members opposite that our government and the members on this side will not support the motion. I want to say why. This is a signature policy for members of the Liberal Party. We ran on it in the last federal election not too long ago. We were given a clear mandate by Canadians to implement a price on pollution across the country. This is something that we have been consistent on since 2015; the other parties in the House have been consistent on it as well. It is a bedrock principle, a price on pollution, for cutting the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change and incentivizing a switch to cleaner ways of doing business. Over the past years, Canadians have seen the Conservative Party sorely confused about this. The last Conservative leader embraced the principle. While we disagreed with the specifics of his policy proposal, he understood that he needed a plan to address climate change so that he and his party could be taken seriously by Canadians. They voted on it. They ran on it. Every Conservative member in the House ran on it, including the hon. member for Carleton, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. Over the years, Conservatives across Canada have voiced their support for robust pricing systems. It makes sense. Price something that is bad. Price pollution. It is a market-based policy. If they would prefer a heavy, regulatory approach, I can understand. If so, the members could get up and say that want to regulate this policy rather than having a market-based solution. That would be surprising coming from the Conservative Party, but that is the alternative. They are silent on that. They have not thought it through. Carbon pricing works by putting a cost on the one thing we do not want, and that is pollution. I hope that we can agree that we do not want pollution, although I am not sure we can. Carbon pricing adds value to the things that we do want: clean air, affordable clean energy and well-paying jobs. It adheres to basic Conservative principles about policy-making. It is a policy that any Conservative who wants to be taken seriously on environmental action should embrace, and for a brief time, they did embrace it. Let us look across the pond to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom. Recently, at COP27, the UN conference on climate change in Egypt, we rolled out a challenge to countries around the world to put a price on pollution. The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom understands the market-based value of doing so, and we welcomed the United Kingdom's commitment to meeting the challenge.

513 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 4:28:57 p.m.
Watch

It is interesting to see members on the other side of the House cosplaying Margaret Thatcher on everything except the one thing she spoke often about, which was the dangers of carbon dioxide. This was years and years before many people were raising the alarm bells on it. Indeed, worldwide, since Canada launched our pollution pricing challenge in 2020, about 20% of greenhouse gases generated across the globe have been covered by a pricing system. That is because it is recognized as the most cost-effective and efficient system to support the climate action outcomes we need. On this side of the aisle and on part of the other side, as there is only one opposition party opposed to this now, although they have flip-flopped, we are proud of the system in place in every province and territory across the country. The matter was already taken to the Supreme Court by Conservative premiers, and the Supreme Court ruled on the pricing pollution system. The decision said, “[T]he evidence reflects a consensus, both in Canada and internationally, that carbon pricing is integral to reducing GHG emissions.” In provinces that are operating under the federal backstop system, all of the revenue is returned to the province of origin, with the climate action incentive payments putting more money into pockets than what is paid for eight out of 10 people. They will receive more. Let me repeat that: All revenues are returned to the province of origin. This is not a revenue-generating scheme for the Government of Canada, although we would not know that by listening to members on the other side. I am surprised they want to keep that a secret and do not want to tell that to Canadians. It is surprising. In the past year, an average family of four received a rebate in Ontario of $745. It was $832 in Manitoba, over $1,100 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. That went back into their pockets. Those amounts will increase as the price on pollution increases. This is where Canadians should be left confused by the Conservatives on the issue. Clearly, under their new leader, they have chosen to sacrifice any semblance of credibility on environmental action and have taken to simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering, which is a favourite policy of the member for Carleton. The Conservatives choose to tell Canadians only half the story, which, again, should not be surprising. They never seem to mention rebates. They also never mention that Canadians in federal backstop provinces receive their climate action incentive rebates at the start of every quarter, which could go toward home heating costs or grocery costs. They never mention that in a rural area, they get an extra 10% on the rebate. They never mention that for farming and fishing, there are exemptions on diesel. Why are the Conservatives only telling half the story? Are they worried that if they told the whole story Canadians would not be behind them? That is quite possible. I would invite members of the opposition to take a different approach. I would invite members to see what we can do as a government to support Canadians on affordable energy, over and on top of the climate action incentive rebates. That includes the half a billion dollars the government has put in place to help people switch from oil to heat pumps. We know people are struggling. We know the cost of living is challenging. However, climate change is contributing to that. I have sat here today and listened to hon. members talk about increased food prices. What do drought and flooding do to that? What do hurricanes that impact farms across Atlantic Canada do to the cost of food? Why are hon. members of the Conservative Party not mentioning that? Why are they silent? If they are only telling half the story, maybe we should question the hon. members on what they are proposing. Maybe they are scared about what Canadians would think if they heard the whole story. Taking action on climate change supports affordability for people coping with the high cost of living right now. This is in addition to all the supports to Canadians we introduced for rental, dental and tax relief, which the Conservative Party voted against. It is big talk from the other side on supporting Canadians, but when the votes happen, they are nowhere to be seen and are voting against. On this side of the aisle, we are helping Canadians switch from the roller coaster of oil and gas prices to a far more affordable and reliable made-in-Canada electricity for their homes and transportation. It is good for the climate and it is good for people's cost of living. It is good policy. What the debate really boils down to is whether the party opposite believes in climate change. I am not sure they do. We never hear the Leader of the Opposition utter the words. He stood in the House today, and for 10 minutes, during a debate about pricing pollution, he did not mention climate change. It is an existential threat to this country and the people living in it, and the Leader of the Opposition is silent. His members are silent. They do not believe in it. They do not believe in the science behind it and it is absolutely shameful. Even though just a few months earlier every single one of them ran on— Mr. Clifford Small: All the dinosaurs are going to die.

925 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 4:30:55 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame that he will have an opportunity to ask a question when it is the appropriate time, should he decide to do so. It is not appropriate for him to be yelling across the way while the hon. member is doing his speech. I also want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that while I am speaking, he should not be trying to speak across the way either. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

94 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/7/23 4:31:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member from Newfoundland is upset because he has witnessed the devastation of climate change in his home province and he remains silent. He remains silent when his constituents are suffering. He remains silent and it is shameful. He and his entire party need to step up. What we will see, if we make pollution free, is more pollution, stronger storms, higher temperatures, more drought, more flooding, more atmospheric rivers, more fires and more floods. It is costing Canadians billions of dollars for each one of these storms. We used to say these were 100-year storms, but they are happening every year. The members of the Conservative Party can act like ostriches and stick their heads in the sand, but on this side of the House, we believe in the science, we believe in climate change and we are going to move forward on environmental action for Canadians.

154 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Feb/7/23 4:32:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just heard my hon. colleague reference atmospheric rivers. I wonder if he could let the House know if we can dam those atmospheric rivers and make hydro power. That would be a wonderful thing to do to get some emissions down. We always get one thing from ministers in the Liberal government when we question them about the carbon tax: They try to shame us into thinking the carbon tax is going to stop storms that start in Africa from reaching Atlantic Canada. Does the member think the second-largest country in the world, which produces less than 2% of the world's emissions, is going to stop hurricanes from happening by bringing in a carbon tax?

120 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/7/23 4:33:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we can tell what the Conservative Party believes in by the hon. member's opening statement. He was making a joke about atmospheric rivers and a storm that cost the people of British Columbia billions of dollars, that impacted farms and that increased prices on food. It cut off British Columbians from the rest of the country, through the Trans-Canada Highway, and he is making a joke about that. It is evident in their policy that the Conservatives and the hon. member do not believe in climate change. He is not serious about it, even though he witnessed a 100-year storm, one of the worst storms to ever hit Atlantic Canada. He witnessed it and looked into his constituents' eyes, and here he says, “I do not care.”

134 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 155