44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/1/23 12:39:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot is said in this House, when we have debates on this topic, about the fact that all members of the Conservative caucus who sit here today ran on pricing pollution in 2021. However, the Leader of the Opposition sits in a special club, a club that is joined by five other Ontario MPs, six from Alberta, one from B.C., one from Manitoba, one from New Brunswick, one from Quebec and three from Saskatchewan. This is a club of MPs who not only ran on it in 2021, but also ran on it in 2006. In 2006, the member, along with all the other MPs I just referenced, ran on Stephen Harper's plan to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gas and air pollution.
The member has now run, with other members from the Conservative caucus, on pricing pollution twice. Could he explain the flip-flop?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:51:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on that point of order, maybe the Conservative member does not know what his opposition motion says, but the fourth point says, “making life more expensive for Canadians [is] a cost of living crisis”. The member is speaking directly to the cost of living.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:24:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is incorrect when he said that we have not been doing our part in the world when it comes to reducing emissions. As a matter of fact, between 2019 and 2021, Canada's GHG emissions dropped by 9%.
Conservatives will quickly say it was the pandemic that slowed it down. The problem with that argument is that our economy continued to grow during that time, so we are indeed bending the curve on GHG emissions, despite the fact we continue to see economic growth.
Would the member like to reflect on his comment and perhaps provide more truth in his next statement?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:37:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, she said that she wanted a tenfold increase of Canadian fossil fuel extraction in order to supply other parts of the world. Can she confirm that this is indeed what she is suggesting? Perhaps I heard her wrong and she would like to correct the record.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:42:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, they are all opposed to pricing pollution because 54% of their base does not even believe in climate change.
I find it interesting that earlier, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn said, in answer to a question, that Conservatives believe in climate change. I almost fell out of my seat and gasped. The member for Abbotsford started to heckle me from the back. The reason why I almost fell out of my seat is because the member for Calgary Forest Lawn probably was not listening when the following was said by the member for Red Deer—Mountain View just two days ago in the House. He said—
An hon. member: Time.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I have 20 minutes, so buckle up.
Madam Speaker, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View said:
I mention that because it has been 60 years of catastrophic snake oil salesmen predicting different things that could happen. They have predicted how, in 10 years' time, we are going to have cities flooded, how we are going to have all these issues and how animals are going to go extinct. We hear that all the time.
Every once in a while, I go to Drumheller. I take a look at a sign above the canyon there saying that, 10,000 years ago, we were under a kilometre of ice. If one wanted to talk to the Laurentian elites, Montreal actually had two kilometres of ice over top of it at that time.
This is where it gets really good and I hope the member for Abbotsford is listening. He also said:
In the 1960s, we were talking about global climate cooling, and we had everybody scared then as well. In the 1970s, we spoke about acid rain and concerns existing around that. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was all about global climate warming. In the year 2000, it was Y2K. Since global warming and global cooling did not seem to match what was happening in reality, we now simply talk about climate change. When we think about the environment, we think about the things that have to be done.
He late continued:
Things change; the climate changes. That is how we got our rivers. I know I deal with the effects of climate change right now when I have to go out into my field and pick rocks, because that is how they got there. These are the sorts of things we have to realize. Things do change.
That was his Conservative colleague speaking in the House, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, just two days ago.
I apologize to the members for Abbotsford and Calgary Forest Lawn for almost falling out of my seat when I heard the member for Calgary Forest Lawn say that Conservatives believe in climate change. Now there might be a really interesting caveat there that they are neglecting to mention as to whether they believe that humans have caused climate change. The member for Red Deer—Mountain View clearly told the House that it has been changing. He just says that it is okay because it is just part of the cycles of earth and nature.
The question is whether they believe that humans have caused it. I think that is where there is going to be a problem, with the grassroots, as the member for Sarnia—Lambton referenced, as 54% of them said at the last Conservative convention that they do not believe in climate change.
Imagine that in a political party in the 21st century, in the year 2023, when we have fires raging on the east coast and we have fires in Alberta. We are literally witnessing the impacts of climate change on a daily basis in this country, and they are still throwing their hands up in the air saying that none of that is true, we did not cause climate change and this is all normal, folks. Nothing to see here.
Again, I apologize profusely to the member for Abbotsford if I offended him when I almost fell out of my seat after listening to the rich rhetoric coming from the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
Nonetheless, what I find really interesting, which has been said a couple of times in the House today, if not more than that, is the number of times Conservatives have brought forward a motion on our price on pollution. Do colleagues know how many times they have brought forward this motion since this Parliament was formed a year and a half ago?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Twice.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Twice? No, it is more than twice.
Mr. Warren Steinley: Eight, or 10?
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I understand that even my Conservative colleague across the way cannot even keep track, but guess what. It is more than eight.
Mr. Warren Steinley: I said 10.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, this is the 10th time Conservatives have brought forward a motion about pricing pollution. It is a motion that has been defeated in the House not nine times but 10. Do members know who has voted against it? Every political party except the Conservative Party has voted against it.
I often think to myself, from time to time, because of the growing similarities between the Conservatives and the Bloc members, that we have the Bloc-Conservative coalition here. They say the NDP-Liberal coalition. We can start saying the Bloc-Conservative coalition. However, not even their coalition buddies in the Bloc will agree with them on this issue. Even the Bloc Québécois members, as right wing as they have become in recent months, if not years, believe that climate change is real and that we have to price pollution.
It is a very basic, fundamental concept that, if we want to change market behaviour, we put a price on something. This is economics 101. This is the fundamental rule people are taught about supply and demand and affecting market decisions, in an introductory course to economics. However, somehow, the political party in the House of Commons, the only party that cannot understand that, also happens to be the party that purports itself to be the saviours of the economy. The only party in the House of Commons that somehow understands how an economy works is also the only party that disagrees with countless numbers, hundreds and thousands, of economists who say that this is the way to do it. The Conservatives disagree with the basic fundamental principles of how an economy works, but somehow they like to build up this image that they are the ones who know what is best for the economy.
I should make it very clear that, although I am talking about Conservatives right now in the current context, I am really speaking about these particular Conservatives. These particular Conservatives are even further to the right than the Conservatives with whom I was elected in 2015. Members will remember that it was only a year and a half ago that all of the members of Parliament who are Conservatives ran on a platform that actually said that they wanted to price pollution.
I have here with me, in both official languages, the plan. It is called “The Man with the Plan”. This is the Conservative Party platform from 2021, which is something I am sure all Conservatives are very proud of because they ran on it.
Madam Speaker, I do have it in both official languages, so with your indulgence, I would seek unanimous consent from the House to table, in both official languages, the Conservative platform. Could I have unanimous consent?
1282 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:51:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, wow, I am really surprised.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:51:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague. If I am too loud for him, perhaps he could leave and watch this later on CPAC to make sure he does not miss a moment of it.
I find it amazing that I just sought the unanimous consent of the House to table, in both official languages, the Conservative Party platform called “The Man with the Plan”, which outlined its plan, and it was Conservatives who yelled no and will not let me table that.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: They are embarrassed about it.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, it does sound like they are embarrassed about it.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:55:03 p.m.
- Watch
How about I read what it says in the platform? In the 2021 platform, it says, “Canada’s Conservatives will work with the provinces to implement an innovative, national, Personal Low Carbon Savings Account. This will put a price on carbon for consumers without one penny going to the government.” That sounds familiar to me. It goes on to say, “It will be completely transparent and engage consumers in the process of building a lower carbon future.”
There were 338 Conservative candidates, 18 months ago, who went door knocking throughout this country and sold this plan to Canadians. Since they were elected, they have brought forward opposition motions against their very own plan 10 times. Talk about it being extremely embarrassing. They are trying to run away from their plan. I am absolutely amazed by it.
Despite the fact that there are over 100 Conservative MPs in the House who were part of that and believed in that, there is also a really special group of Conservative MPs in the House. These members are above and beyond those who ran in the last election.
Those members are, starting with the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton; the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin; the member for Edmonton Mill Woods; the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie; the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who everyone will remember I quoted earlier; the member for Red Deer—Lacombe; the member for Banff—Airdrie; the member for Abbotsford, who was heckling me; the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman; the member for Fundy Royal; my neighbour, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston; the member for Niagara West; the member for Oshawa; the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke; the member for Wellington—Halton Hills; the member for Prince Albert; the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle; and the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
What club do these members belong to? They belong to a different club. They belong to a club that not only ran on pricing pollution in 2021, but also ran on it in 2008 under Stephen Harper. Can anyone believe that? I have that platform too, in both official languages. Perhaps, with unanimous consent, they will allow me to table the 2008 Conservative platform in both official languages.
394 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:55:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, wow, I cannot believe that. The Conservatives have now rejected, not once but twice, my attempts to table their very own platforms.
Well, I guess I will just have to read it. Listen to Stephen Harper's commitment that the member for Abbotsford and all the members I referenced, including the member for Carleton, ran on in 2008. It said:
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will implement our Turning the Corner action plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms by 20 per cent over 2006 levels by 2020. We will work with the provinces and territories and our NAFTA trading partners in the United States and Mexico, at both the national and state levels [here is the good part], to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution....
For those who do not know what a cap and trade system is, it is basically an alternative to the pricing mechanism that we have now. However, I cannot believe that we now have not only MPs who were hypocrites in 2021, but now we have hypocrites from 2021 and 2008 elections, including the member for Abbotsford, who I understand used to be the minister of the environment.
People will sometimes ask what the cap and trade system is, which I think is a very good question to ask, because there is a slight difference between that and our existing pricing mechanism.
The cap and trade system was actually brought about in North America a number of years ago. It was started by the Western Climate Initiative. In 2007, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington started what was known as the Western Climate Initiative. Later on, Montana and Utah joined. After that, Ontario, Quebec and B.C. got into the cap and trade program.
The cap and trade program is slightly different from pricing pollution, but it effectively does the same thing. It encourages companies within those jurisdictions to trade off their emissions and effectively lowers emissions. This is exactly what Stephen Harper was talking about in his 2008 platform commitment. He wanted to implement that system that had been developed by the Western Climate Initiative. He wanted to bring it in.
Now, guess what happened? Stephen Harper got elected, but do members think he delivered on that commitment?
An hon. member: I bet he flip-flopped.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: He flip-flopped, that is right. He did not deliver on that commitment. However, instead what we ended up seeing were the provinces going alone. The provinces said, “Well, if Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, cannot take a federal initiative on this, something he ran on and was elected on, we will do it on our own.” That is when Ontario and Quebec went to see Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, signed the deal and essentially became part of the cap and trade.
Flash forward to our newest premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, who got elected.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Yay for Doug Ford; amazing. If we can believe it, Doug Ford is even more progressive than these guys.
However, I will conclude with this: Doug Ford got out of it. What did we see in the process? What have seen since then? We saw Quebec move so much faster and further ahead in terms of emission reductions via electric vehicle stations and protecting our environment. Now, Ontario is lagging behind.
I look forward to continuing after question period.
595 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to continue my speech, which I started before question period. I highlighted some very obvious hypocrisies and these are hypocrisies that we have seen from the Conservative Party of Canada.
I outlined for everybody what many of us have been talking about in the House. The Liberals, the NDP and even the Bloc at times have asked the Conservatives why they ran in an election in 2021 on pricing pollution, only to come to the House immediately after that election and move virtually the exact same opposition motion about carbon pricing that they are moving today, for the 10th time since that last election, when they ran on it.
What I found to be even more staggeringly offensive, or perhaps a better expression would be concerning, is that there are a number of Conservative MPs, and I believe the number, if I have it right, is 19 members of the Conservative Party, current members of the House, who not only ran in 2021 on pricing pollution, but also ran in 2008 on Stephen Harper's promise to bring in cap and trade, which is another form of pricing pollution. It is a form that, I would add, the province of Quebec continues to this day. As a result, Quebec does not have the federal pricing mechanism that many of the other provinces, such as the one I am from, Ontario, are subject to.
Members can think of how far to the right this particular brand of the Conservative Party has come. This is not from Brian Mulroney, because we know it is light years away from Brian Mulroney. Brian Mulroney and Flora MacDonald, from my riding, were Progressive Conservatives who cared about the environment. They were Progressive Conservatives who fought for things such as saving the ozone layer, and who worked with Americans to do that. Those were Progressive Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives of Brian Mulroney.
Brian Mulroney brought 42 countries from around the world to Montreal to talk about how to deal with acid rain. That was a progressive Conservative party, but this party, in its current form, is even further to the right than Stephen Harper. I do not know if members are aware of this, and I just became aware of it this morning, but there were ads run by the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association at one time thanking Stephen Harper for the work he was doing when it came to renewable fuels as a form of energy.
Here we are in 2023, with a political party, the Conservative Party of Canada, that does not even believe in climate change. I would argue that this is really just the Reform Party using the Conservative name and the shade of blue. That might be offensive to some members sitting in the House right now, but as I read out earlier, we heard a statement from the member for Red Deer—Mountain View just two days ago, in which he basically said that this is all cyclical, happens every 10,000 years and there is nothing to see here. This is the Conservative Party of Canada we are dealing with now.
We are in a world where it is so glaringly obvious that humans have contributed to climate change, and where it is so obvious that we need to actually do something about it. Rather than try to bring forward policy, create ideas and bring forward suggestions to work on protecting our environment, the Conservative Party of Canada has brought forward 10 motions in the last 18 months trying to eliminate the price on pollution, despite the fact it has already lost two elections since it was introduced.
618 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:34:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is true. They might disagree with it now, and to the defence of one member of the Conservative Party, she, of the numerous times I have asked that question, was the one member who stood up and said she disagreed with the policy they ran on in 2021. I will hand it to that one member. I will not call her out by name right now because I do not want her to receive any emails to her office to that effect, but every other Conservative we asked the question of just completely skated around it. At least they could stand up to say they ran on it in 2021, it was part of their platform and it was a price on pollution, but now they have changed their mind.
That would be so much more honourable than just trying to avoid answering the question every time. I did try to table that platform, as the parliamentary secretary said. I tried to table the 2021 and 2008 platforms, in which they talk about pricing pollution, in the House before question period. Do members know who yelled out no to that, not letting me table them? It was Conservatives. They would not let me table their own platforms.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:36:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will answer it, and I think I have already answered it to that member and other Conservatives.
The policy changed. It is different now than it was then. Can members see how easy it was for me to directly answer the question? It may have been a position we had at one time, and now the position is different, but we are honest and open with Canadians about that. The question is why that member and other Conservatives will not be honest and open with Canadians about how their position has changed on climate change.
We will note that the member complimented me, in some form I guess, by saying I spoke about nothing. He is a Conservative who comes from a party where 54% of its base says climate change is not real, and he is a Conservative who shares the same side of the aisle as the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who talked about climate change two days ago as though it were just something that happens every 10,000 years, as though there is nothing to see here. Only a Conservative who shares that space would refer to my dire plea to do something about global warming and climate change as me talking about nothing.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:38:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do not talk about it because that is who their base is. That is who donates to them. When they put forward 10 motions about getting rid of the carbon tax, that is who they are targeting with those motions. When the Leader of the Opposition comes in here to speak to that issue, clips it afterward and puts it out there in an email blast, he is talking to those people. That is why they will not talk about it.
To the member's other question about a windfall tax, I think it is a very good discussion to have. I am completely open to it. I think we need to look at absolutely every possible solution to fight climate change, and I am more than willing to work with my colleague and other members of the House to see how we can go about doing that.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:39:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start with the latter comment and come to the beginning.
The Minister of Public Safety was responding to Senator Plett's comment about me being a parliamentary secretary to the leader in the Senate, which I am not. I am the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. That is to correct the first error he made.
Second, I will answer the member's question the exact same way that my parliamentary secretary colleague did. I was here and heard the whole thing. He started off by saying he found it very hypocritical that the member would challenge us on a platform commitment that we have only partially delivered on, given the fact that the member ran on putting a price on pollution and is somehow oblivious to that fact now. He does not think it is necessary to answer for that while he makes these demands, and that is hypocritical.
To the other point, which is what my parliamentary secretary colleague said specifically, does the member not realize that if we plant that many trees, we are not going to do it all at once? It is not a linear graph. It is going to happen exponentially. Does the member realize that to create that many trees, we have to start with a seedling? The seedling has to be properly germinated and turned into a tree to get to the point where we can actually plant it. I cannot believe I am actually having this high school science discussion with the member, but it is the reality of how trees grow.
266 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:42:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the future is in electrification. That is where it is going to be. There is a transition happening before us, and there is nothing the Conservatives can do or say to change that.
The real question is, where is Canada going to be in that regard? Are we going to be leading at the forefront of it so that we can export our technology and become prosperous as a result? Or are we going to wait until every other country has done it and buy the technology off them?
This government has set us up in such a way that we can bring investments into Canada early on. We are taking a measurable risk on that by investing in companies and letting them establish in Canada and build their roots here. However, we will become the exporters of that technology throughout the world. That is leadership. That is what the government has been doing.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 4:07:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will pay the member the same compliment he paid me, which is that he is very well versed. He knows how to get up, stand on his feet and speak to a topic for an extended period of time, and I appreciated him doing that today.
I have heard the member talk a few times in the past about the decrease in GHG emissions in Canada. Between 2019 and 2021, Canada actually decreased more of them, as a percentage, than five out of the other six G7 countries. However, he always comes back to that and says there was a pandemic then. Unfortunately for that argument, since the pandemic, our economy has continued to grow and we are still seeing those reductions. Can he explain how the economy can grow and the pandemic can shrink them at the same time?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
