SoVote

Feb/1/24 10:45:20 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that when I visited Timmins last year, and when our Conservative leader has visited Timmins time and time again, the constituents said they never see or hear from their NDP MP. They say just how out of touch the NDP has become. It has sold out working families, particularly in northern Ontario, in Timmins—James Bay, and continues to prop up the Liberal government. It was just in the news last week, in The Daily Press, up in Timmins. The airport manager of the Victor M. Power Airport said he has a serious concern about the rising cost of living in this country. I am going to quote him. He said: We’re burning hundreds and hundreds of litres of fuel and that price is going to go up a huge amount. That cost gets passed onto the traveling public right out of Timmins. So my budget is going to go through the roof in the next couple of years. My focus is running the business of the airport. I need to do something to make sure...people can afford to fly, and not have [to pay] $800 seats to [go to] Toronto. That is because carbon taxes are driving up the cost of living in northern Ontario. It gets cold in northern Ontario. To heat their homes, people need to have heat. They should not be penalized for doing that. They have to drive. If they are going from Timmins to Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay, Kapuskasing, Hearst or any point in between, there is no subway. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance just hops on the subway. I have been up there a few times in northern Ontario. I found a Subway restaurant, but I have not found the subway that she suggests people in northern Ontario can just use. The motion we have is clear. Our position, as Canadian Conservatives, is clear as well. We will axe the tax entirely, on everything, for good. The Prime Minister is playing games with Bill C-234 and giving an exemption or carve-out to farmers to save $1 billion. They will not go for that. They are playing games in the Senate and now here in the House. They now have the opportunity to go on the record. They do not have to increase the carbon tax again on April 1. It is time to cancel the increase and give Canadians some much-needed relief after eight years of the Prime Minister and his NDP partners.

429 words

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

Feb/1/24 10:47:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, and that member in particular, want to talk a lot about the price on pollution but do not want to talk about the other things the government is doing, in particular for the agriculture sector. There is one riding in Ontario that receives $6.8 million through the agriculture sector emissions reductions and clean-tech funding. This is money that is actually given to the agricultural sector to help it reduce its emissions and find clean technology. Do members know whose riding receives $6.8 million a year from the federal government for that? It is that member's riding. That member's riding receives $6.8 million of federal money to help the agricultural industry move away from emissions and in the direction of clean tech. I am wondering, in the interest of axing everything, whether the member would comment on whether the Conservative government would axe this clean-tech funding and this $6.8 million to his riding.

163 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Feb/1/24 10:48:52 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands talks about six-point-some million dollars. I just went through and told him that the millions of dollars in carbon tax that is being paid by farmers is going to be quadrupled in the coming years. They are getting tax increases like they have never seen before. A billion dollars is what Canadian farmers are going to pay in the coming years. The arrogance of the Liberal government, and that Liberal member in particular, says that the government knows best. It is driving up their taxes and giving it back. We have a common-sense solution. It is to get green technology red tape out of the way, like on tidal energy in New Brunswick. There are numerous hydroelectric projects in Quebec that are being stalled because of federal red tape. The Liberals' answer is to tax them, jack up their taxes and carbon tax, and try to cut a cheque for some of it back. The provinces do not believe it. It has failed, and it is not working. I encourage the member to come and visit a farmer in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry; he would get an earful about the Liberal record on everything.

208 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/1/24 10:49:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my question with how disappointed I am in the member opposite. The member speaks about being out of touch, while we see, in my home province of Alberta, children and trans kids being attacked. That member has the power and should have the courage to stand in this place and condemn that violence. Will the member now, as I give him the opportunity, stand to protect trans rights in this country and stand against Conservative premiers who, as we speak, are attacking children's rights? Will he have the courage to do it now?

100 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Feb/1/24 10:50:31 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that does not have anything to do with the motion and the debate here at hand on the carbon tax, but I will say, as a proud gay man, that he should not question my integrity or my commitment on anything. I have been proud, as an example, to stand up to end the discriminatory blood ban that the NDP and Liberals propped up for far too long. I will not take any lessons from him trying to lecture me about anything. Back to the matter at hand, talking about out of touch and talking about aloof, we have that member from Edmonton. Temperatures in Edmonton reached -50°C or -45°C only about a week or two ago, and that member does not like the inconvenience of it. He is going to have to go doorknocking in the next election and explain to people in Edmonton why he wants to quadruple the carbon tax and their home heating bill when temperatures hit -45°C. The reason people are using food banks, the reason people are struggling, the reason housing costs and the economy are out of control is the constant tax increases that the member keeps voting for. I know he does not like talking about it, but it is about time he smartened up and did.

223 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Feb/1/24 10:52:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week a dairy farmer in my riding called me. He was calling in reference to one of these federal government grants, and he said that it is almost as if the government is forcing him to spend money on something. He said that what the Liberal government does not seem to understand is that he wants to lower his input costs and make his barn as efficient as possible, but he does not want to be cajoled into a single program by a bureaucrat in Ottawa about what he should be doing with his business and his family farm. Maybe the member from Ontario can comment on what a Conservative approach would be to letting farmers produce the food we need and not letting government get in the way all the time.

135 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Feb/1/24 10:52:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. I hear the same thing from farmers. I mentioned before about the elevators, about Rutters Elevators in Chesterville. I talked to Mike Aube about the carbon tax bill and the massive increases they are seeing there. Mike was telling me that they want to build greenhouses and expand their operations, but whenever they see their bills go up by the hundreds and thousands of dollars and look at their overall cash flow, it creates a serious problem. The increases they are forced to pass on to everybody else do not allow new projects for Canadian-grown food to be expanded. Chesterville is a perfect example.

110 words

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

Feb/1/24 10:53:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. Here we are once again, talking about the same motion based on the same red herrings we have seen time and time again coming from the Conservatives. I listened to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon just moments ago, where he tried to imply that the federal funding toward the reduction of emissions and toward clean technology was only one particular program. It is clear the member has no concept whatsoever of what the federal government is doing for farmers, in that there are so many programs. When I said $6.8 million, I was giving the total number over a whole vast array of various different programs. It is not a single program, but it is not new and not unique to me to hear Conservatives talking like this. It is what they want to do repeatedly. They want to take an issue like global inflation and try to apply it to Canada and say that it is a problem only in Canada. They say that this is a problem that has been created by the price on pollution, which is ludicrous. We know, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the price on pollution contributes to 0.15% as it relates to inflation. It is literally negligible and could be chalked up to a rounding error, yet Conservatives jump on it as though this is what is making life unaffordable for many Canadians right now. They do not want to talk about the realities. They do not want to talk about what is actually going on throughout the world and how Canada is positioning itself to be at the forefront when it comes to these new technologies. I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about building car batteries in Canada. Is he not aware that the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, one of his Conservative members, had the largest investment, not in Canada but in North America, for building batteries to go into vehicles? That is all happening a 20-kilometre drive from where I live, in Hastings—Lennox and Addington. This is setting the course for the future in terms of the industry being at the forefront, so that we will not be importing technology and so that we will be the ones actually creating the technology and developing those products right here in Canada. That particular facility, Umicore, will produce 800,000 batteries to go into vehicles each and every year. It is a multi-billion dollar investment from Umicore, not just into Canada but into Ontario, into Hastings—Lennox and Addington, into the Kingston region. This is huge, but it is only one example. We are well aware of Stellantis and the other various different players emerging in Canada as it relates to environmental technologies and the green technologies of tomorrow. People look toward Canada. Companies and businesses look toward Canada because they know we have the resources and the political will to push toward this new and emerging technology. This is why we are seeing people come and invest here. While I am on the topic, do members know why Umicore even picked Ontario? The president of Umicore said, in his press conference, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington was there with a big smile on her face when it happened at Queen's University two summers ago, that Umicore chose Ontario because it is producing environmentally sustainable products and it wants to know that what goes into those products is environmentally sustainable. A vast majority of the resources that go into building those batteries comes from electricity, and he recognized that Ontario does not burn coal to produce electricity. That is thanks to a previous provincial Liberal government, by the way. He recognized that Ontario has taken great strides toward ensuring that we have renewable, sustainable electricity produced in a responsible way. That is why companies are choosing to invest in Canada. That is why they are choosing Ontario. That is why they are choosing Hastings—Lennox and Addington. The mayors in the surrounding area, including in Kingston, are thrilled about this. The city councils are thrilled about this. The economic opportunities that are being produced as a result of investments like this, because of the initiatives of the Liberal government, will last for generations, quite frankly. I get real kick out of it when I see Conservative members being super excited about these things when they are back in there ridings, but when they come to the House of Commons, they toe the line of the Leader of the Opposition, that the only solution forward is to go back to burning as much fossil fuel as we possibly can. When we talk about the price on pollution and what Conservatives are proposing today, it is really important that we actually talk about what they are proposing. They talk about axing a lot of stuff. What they are going to be axing are rebates to families. It might not be the families that they are interested in, because lower-income families receive more through the climate action incentive rebate than higher-income families. However, the reality is that what Conservatives would be axing, is a family of four, in the spring of this year, will receive $244 for one quarter; in Manitoba, $264; in Saskatchewan, $340. The same family living in Alberta, for one quarter, would receive, and currently receives, $386. We hear the Conservatives routinely say that we are going to double it or triple the tax, but of course they do not tell us the timeline, because some of the timelines are a decade out. However, what they forget to say is that the rebate doubles and triples as well. We recognize that in order to transition away from fossil fuels, which I want to do, and I know many members of the House of Commons, the Canadian population and a majority of our constituents want to do, we have to incentivize people to make change. In an economic model that is built on capitalism, that is built on supply and demand, the way to incentivize people is by putting a price on things on which we want to change behaviour. We would think that the Conservatives before anybody else would know this. The same thing happens with taxes on tobacco. The same thing happens with taxes on other products where we are looking to change behaviour. However, the key difference to any other tax, and what the Conservatives never want to mention, is that in order to accomplish this, but still be reasonable for families to absorb those prices, is to return all the money to them. The natural question is, “Why do it in the first place?” I just assumed that Conservatives could understand how market mechanisms work to incentivize and change behaviour in the market. Apparently they do not. The good news is that we know that it is working, and we are starting to see it. The projections are showing that by 2030 over a third of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed specifically to pricing pollution. We are not the only ones that price pollution. Countless jurisdictions throughout the world price pollution. Ukraine prices pollution. Ukraine, a country that is literally at war right now, prices pollution, and it has since 2011. It was the only way that the European economy was going to let it participate in the economy. Most, if not all, European economies have a price on pollution in one form or another, whether that is a direct price, or cap and trade or one of the various different models. The Conservatives never miss an opportunity to try to conflate and confuse Canadians as to what the realities are when it comes to the price on pollution and how it works, generally speaking. Once again, we find ourselves in a position where the Conservatives have brought forward motion after motion on the same issue, not just the issue of pricing pollution and the fact that they are against it but on an issue that they ran on in the last election. All Conservative members in here, whether they say they agree with it or not, ran under a policy that included pricing pollution. Now they have such buyers' remorse over their last leader that they have used just about every opposition day in this session of Parliament on this issue. I am looking forward to answering questions that my colleagues might have. I am quite certain that this is not the last time the Conservatives will bring forward this motion, but it is certainly a policy that will be to the benefit of our environment in the future.

1483 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/1/24 11:03:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to rise today to explain the many reasons why the Green Party will be voting against today's opposition motion, but I would like to ask my friend from Kingston and the Islands to comment on this. We had an earlier exchange about whether enforcing the carbon tax or raising the carbon tax could stop fires and floods. The answer from science is clear that it cannot. We cannot turn back what has happened to the atmosphere with respect to atmospheric chemistry and physics, but we can avoid runaway global warming, the kind that self-accelerates and becomes unstoppable. We must not stoke the furnace further on future warming to destroy the lives of our children, which is why we need carbon pricing, and we need more to reduce emissions much more quickly. Does my my hon. colleague have any comments on that?

150 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/1/24 11:04:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague from the Green Party on this. The reality is that this false narrative or red herring reminds me a lot of the one that we hear quite often from Conservatives about Canada's fossil fuels being the cleanest in the world, as though that is some reason why we should not seek to do better. Rather than doing something about a problem, their solution is to exploit our resources because they are slightly more cleaner than other jurisdictions. We know that what it really comes down to is that Canada is a leader. We are a G7 country. We benefited from the industrial revolution immensely. It is to the benefit of every citizen in our country, like all our other G7 partners. We have an obligation to the world to be at the forefront, to lead the charge in terms of changing our environmental practices throughout the globe. This idea that we can somehow dismiss the issue away because we are a bit better than some other countries is a huge red herring. It is what we hear time and time again from Conservatives and it is getting pretty stale.

198 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Feb/1/24 11:05:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in December, the Atlantic caucus of the Liberal Party came together with the Prime Minister to make an announcement on heat pumps. It just so happened that the announcement was taking place at the same time as the carbon price was about to go up. For all the rhetoric we are hearing from the member from Kingston today, when push came to shove, when the government was faced with a price increase that people in Atlantic Canada could not afford to stomach, it backed down. Does the member think it is okay for Canadians to pay more in carbon taxes than heating like natural gas, which is very commonly found on bills in Canada today?

117 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/1/24 11:06:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 Canadians get back more than they put in. Yes, some Canadians who have very large homes and multiple vehicles probably end up spending more than they get back. In particular, individuals who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum are certainly getting much more back than they are paying. I find it really interesting that he accuses me of all this rhetoric. Conservatives continually miss the point of explaining to Canadians that they are going to get back more than they are paying. They would rather seek an opportunity to capitalize from a political narrative that suits them right now because it will benefit them politically. However, it will do nothing for the environment and nothing for our country.

127 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/1/24 11:07:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wish we had started the year the same way you did, with a new look and new priorities. I wish the Conservatives would do the same and let us move on to something other than the carbon tax. That said, it is the topic of the day, and we will respect that. In his speech, my colleague said something about the energy transition that I find very interesting. He talked about the Stellantis investments and the spin-offs for Ontario. Not only is the government spending billions of dollars to shift one of Quebec's flagship economic sectors, transport electrification, to Ontario, but it is doing so by trying to one-up the U.S. with investments and subsidies. That is what it is doing instead of developing the industry from the mine up and building up the entire supply chain for our mines, our regions. The government should be thinking about how it can ensure that economic development and a green economy are created at each stage. If it had done that, it could have saved money and jump-started a sustainable energy transition. Right now, the government is subsidizing the top without building the base, and it is buying Chinese lithium. This is the result. What are this government's priorities when it comes to transport electrification? Electrification is the way to avoid the carbon tax.

231 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/1/24 11:08:49 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the priority is to build in Canada. I spent five minutes of my 10-minute speech talking about Umicore, a multi-billion dollar plant that is being built right outside my riding, in the Conservative member's riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. It will build 800,000 car batteries per year. There is also a lot of rhetoric. I got a kick out of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon when, in the previous question, he talked about Atlantic Canada, again trying to pigeonhole this as though it is something just about Atlantic Canada. Twice as many people in Ontario will benefit from the three-year cap on heating with oil than in Atlantic Canada. Does that change the narrative of the Conservatives? No, of course not, because it does not suit them right now. It would be better to make it seem as though there was some big deal that contributed to that announcement.

162 words

Fraser

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

Feb/1/24 11:09:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to point out that I believe there is an error in the wording of the motion. The motion calls on the Liberal government to cancel the April 1, 2024, carbon tax increase. However, there is no carbon tax. It is actually a price on pollution. I believe that both the House and Canadians are being misled on this issue. Why is it not a tax? For it to be a tax, the government would have to put the money into its coffers with a view to spending it on programs or investing it in the future of Canadians. That is not what the price on pollution does. With the price on pollution, the government is only an intermediary, because the proceeds are returned to Canadians. It is a price mechanism, something that the Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman endorsed as an economic measure for fighting pollution. How does this mechanism work in terms of carbon pricing? It is very interesting. It involves a little bit of magic. When a consumer goes to spend money and sees that the price is perhaps a little higher, they are not thinking about the quarterly deposit they will receive from the Government of Canada in their chequing account as compensation. They just look at the price and decide that, since it is a bit more expensive, they will consume a little less. That saves them money in the short term, and then, on January 1, April 1 and so forth, they realize that money has been deposited in their bank account. They will feel doubly lucky, because they saved money at the pump and also got money from the government. That is how carbon pricing works, and it is the key to its effectiveness as a measure for fighting pollution, especially greenhouse gas emissions. What is very frustrating about this debate, in addition to the fact that it is the same debate over and over again based on a very symbolic and superficial understanding of what the price on pollution is, are these flimsy conclusions that the official opposition wishes to draw about the impact of the price on pollution on inflation and, more specifically, on food prices. However, rigorous academic study after rigorous academic study has pointed to the fact that the impact of the price on pollution on food prices is extremely small. Now, we know that the official opposition has no respect for the Bank of Canada and that it would like to take the Bank of Canada under its wing and dictate monetary policy, but it is an incredibly credible institution filled with some of the best economists in this country. What does the Bank of Canada say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and inflation? It says that the price on carbon contributes about 0.15 % to inflation overall. The University of Calgary, is not, I might add for anyone who does not follow schools of thought and academic life in this country, what I would call a hotbed of socialism. What did the University of Calgary say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and food inflation? University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe estimates that the price on carbon I will call it, because I do not want to mislead people as it is not a tax, is responsible for less than 1% of grocery price increases. How did Professor Tombe come to that conclusion? Did he just pull a number out of the air the way the official opposition likes to do? No. He used a Statistics Canada modelling program. Again, we have some of the country's greatest econometric experts working at Statistics Canada, like we do at the Bank of Canada. I do not know if the official opposition members are calling into question the integrity and expertise of Statistics Canada, maybe they are, but I would say that the Statistics Canada modelling program is a credible instrument and that is what Professor Tombe was using. He goes on to say that in Alberta, because this is very much focused in many ways on Alberta and the oil industry, the price on carbon has increased prices by about 0.3%, which is 30¢ on a $100 bill, in Manitoba it is 0.9% and in Ontario it is 0.4%. These are credible, rigorous academic studies. However, we do not get any of that from the official opposition; rather, we get this kind of false logic, like the shin bone is attached to the knee bone and the knee bone is attached to the thigh bone, etc. It starts with the idea that there is a price on carbon, which means it is going to cost more to drive a truck, or this and that, and eventually it is going to show up on the shelves. The fact of the matter is that is not real logic founded on a rigorous analysis. The other point I would like to make is that the price of food has gone up. However, according to credible news media like CTV News, and an article posted on its website, there are a number of factors that are contributing to the high price of food. The first is climate change. Devastating wildfires continue to rage across Canada, destroying forests and farmland. Let us use a bit of simplistic logic that maybe the official opposition can understand. If farmland is destroyed, what happens to the supply of food? It goes down. The Leader of the Opposition thinks of himself as a wonderful and great economist, but what happens when the supply of food goes down and the demand stays the same? What happens to the price? It goes up. That is the number one cause of rising food prices. It is basic logic. The really interesting thing is that greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector are not regulated. There is no price on carbon on greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector. As a matter of fact, a lot of people have been writing to me saying that we have to price greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural lands, but we have not done that. What is another aspect that is causing challenges to the supply of food? Can members guess what Ukraine has been called? It has been called the breadbasket of Europe. I think it is going through some tough times, which may be limiting the supply of wheat from that part of the world. Again, if we constrain supply in the face of a demand that is stable or even increasing, we get higher prices. I do not know why the leader of the official opposition does not click into that. It is basic economics 101. Therefore, we have to look at these other causes. The price on carbon is not the cause of all the woes around the world and we have to stop saying that. What the members of the official opposition like to do, over and again, through these opposition day motions is build straw men, which they then demolish on social media while pretending to be heroes. That is all this is about. It is all about social media hits.

1212 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/1/24 11:19:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of a very significant individual in my riding, Bob Gieselman, who passed away recently. Bob devoted a lot to the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and around in service to the community. My condolences to his family. May perpetual light shine upon him. My hon. colleague said that we are having the same debate and that it is superficial and symbolic. What is not superficial and symbolic are the people who are writing me letters saying that they have to choose between heating and eating or that they cannot afford a $6 bag of lettuce. What are we supposed to be doing here if not talking about the issue of Canadian affordability? I really take issue with the Liberals framing this as if there is nothing to see here. There is something to see here, which is that people cannot afford to live in Canada. The Liberals should be ashamed for ignoring that.

184 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Feb/1/24 11:20:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my condolences to the hon. member on the loss of his constituent. I am glad that he took the opportunity to mention that. I am sure the constituent's family will appreciate that deeply. The member was just not listening. We do not deny that the price of food is high. We are just reminding the member and his party that it is not because of the price on carbon. There is a war in Ukraine. There are wildfires and floods that are destroying farmland in Canada. These are the factors that are driving the price of food. Fortunately, food inflation is coming down to match general inflation. That is a good sign, but let us hope that continues.

121 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/1/24 11:21:24 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that we are talking about the carbon tax today, because just this morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released the costing of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage. How much will this measure cost over the next five years? It will cost approximately $5.5 billion. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me that it would be a far better idea to invest this money in true green energy than to try to convince us that oil can be environmentally friendly.

93 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Feb/1/24 11:21:59 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have not seen the report my colleague is talking about. The Liberal government is obviously not trying to eliminate fossil fuels. We are going to have to live with that for a while yet. Yes, there are clean energy sources. The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry was talking about green tidal energy. We have to invest, and the government is investing. There are technologies that are still in development, like what my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry was talking about. The Bay of Fundy project did not fail because of federal government regulations. The problem is that it is very hard to reap the benefits of that kind of technology at this point in time. There are limits, but we have to keep investing. Unfortunately, we have to deal with fossil fuels for a while yet.

146 words

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

Feb/1/24 11:23:17 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague, but I was a little frustrated this morning because in trying to use logic on a party leader who bases everything on a bumper sticker slogan, my colleague is wasting his efforts. The issue at hand here is that the Leader of the Opposition is accusing the Liberals of not having an environmental plan, which I might agree with on most days, but there is no Conservative environmental plan other than letting the planet burn. What are the Conservatives willing to throw under the bus to let the planet burn right now in Alberta? Not a single member of the Alberta or Saskatchewan MPs have stood up about the climate disaster that is unfolding. Thirteen counties have declared environmental disasters from the drought. This is four years into a drought. There is no snow in Edmonton. The climate crisis and a burning planet are affecting farmers and not a single one of them would ever stand up and defend farmers from climate change. They would rather throw them under the bus so that Rich Kruger and Suncor can make more money. That is the Conservatives' environmental plan.

197 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273