SoVote

Feb/1/24 3:37:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the good people of Saint John—Rothesay have a real champion here in Ottawa. He gave me a compliment, but let me say this: I believe the hon. member has indicated that he will not be re-offering in this place in the next election. That will be a great loss to Parliament, because he is one of the best constituency advocates in Ottawa for his people. When I watch him on social media, he never forgets where he comes from. He is always out on the go. I would say what I have said to other colleagues here today: For Conservatives, the entire conversation is about the price signal, but they never talk about the rebates that come back to Canadian families. In the member's riding, eight out of 10 families receive more money back. Conservatives are not talking about what it would mean for families in Saint John—Rothesay and, indeed, across the country if they were to cut that. I think it is important for him and all of us here to make sure we remind our colleagues about that.

188 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:37:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been around this place long enough to recall the carve-out that was implemented in Atlantic Canada, which was as a result of bad polling numbers and the fact that the carbon tax is not well received in Atlantic Canada. That is why the Atlantic caucus forced the Prime Minister to do this carve-out. With a quadrupling of the carbon tax, everything is going to cost his constituents more by the time it is fully implemented. Can the hon. member honestly stand here and tell this House that his constituents approve of and support that?

100 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:38:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what drove that policy was a focus on vulnerable households. The member knows this policy applies across the country. I will not apologize for fighting for my region, which is energy insecure. We had to make some adjustments to a national policy that has made a difference across the country, including in his own riding. This was driven by equity in a national policy. I also want to say that, when he talks about quadrupling, the whole goal here is to be able to reduce the actual reliance on carbon. Eventually, people will not be paying the price, because we have been able to help them move over. I will provide the one quick example of heat pumps, where the goal is to help people reduce their use of home heating oil. It is a good affordability measure.

140 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:39:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte. I am proud to rise on behalf of my constituents in the common-sense riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are hurting. They are hurting because of bad policies—

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 3:39:52 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that, if they want to have conversations, they should take them outside. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

26 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/1/24 3:40:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, common-sense Conservatives have a real plan to turn that hurt into hope. It starts with axing the carbon tax, which is pushing up the cost of everything. Canadians understand that, when a government has an official policy to increase the cost of energy, it increases the cost of everything that requires energy, which is everything. However, the socialist coalition members think Canadians are stupid. They think all they need to do is slap a new label on their carbon tax and Canadians will just forgive them for increasing the cost of living. Unfortunately, the Liberals are not the only ones who think Canadians can be fooled. The far left media allies are already hard at work, rebranding the carbon tax. It is no longer called a tax. Now they call it a “carbon price”. How long will it be before the CBC starts to rebrand income tax as a “price on earnings”? They can rebrand GST as a “price on shopping”. They can call it whatever they want, but Canadians know that a tax is a tax. It does not matter how much carbon the Liberals burn to keep their gaslights burning bright; the truth outshines it all. The truth is this: Their carbon tax is going up in April. Therefore, as long as these proud socialists hold on to power, it will go up year after year. It will keep going up until they have redistributed every last dollar from hard-working Canadians in small towns without transit to the wealthy urban elite, such as the finance minister, who brags about how easy it is for her to get around without a car. Of course, most Canadians would find it a lot easier with a personal chauffeur, a six-figure salary and a taxpayer-funded luxury SUV. What about Canadians like Edmund? Edmund lives on a fixed income. His after-tax income is $20,000. He just received his climate bribe for this fiscal quarter. He also received his natural gas bill for December. The carbon tax on that bill was $72.36. That means he paid $9.41 in HST on the carbon tax. That is for just one month of winter. One month eats up half the quarterly rebate, and that is before Edmund has driven a single kilometre. I would seek unanimous consent to table his tax statement and gas bills, but I already know the Liberals are too cowardly to face the truth. They would prefer to stay in their nostalgia-infused fever dream, where everything is awesome. They desperately want to take Canada back to the 1960s, when the CBC was popular, the UN was relevant and Canadians loved a prime minister named Trudeau. They really believe they can control the weather with a tax. They just wave their Liberal wand and say “zap, you are frozen”. Only a Liberal could summon the level of arrogance required to believe that, if they just tax Canadians hard enough, it will stop flooding. The carbon tax is about punishing the types of Canadians these Liberals call “unacceptable” and rewarding the ones who vote for them. It is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. The fact is that it is generous to even call it a plan. The Liberals' agenda is little more than a string of slogans, such as “30 by 30” or “net zero”. Now, they have gone all-in on expensive, dirty electric batteries, just as the oil and gas industry is discovering vast reserves of clean hydrogen. That is why the Liberals are adopting Soviet-style car sales mandates. The only way their battery subsidies will not bankrupt us is if they force people to buy cars that do not work in the cold weather. Before any of my colleagues jump up and shout about what all those electric cars in Norway are doing, I would remind them that the average temperature in January in Ottawa is three times colder than that in Oslo. Even the Liberals' net-zero promise is a fantasy. The only way to reach net zero is with direct carbon capture. Carbon dioxide molecules make up only .04% of the atmosphere. It takes a lot of energy to remove carbon dioxide molecules, but these proud socialists oppose cheap electricity. Many of these radical environmentalists even oppose carbon capture. They claim it is a way of keeping on using oil and gas, but if all the emissions are captured, why would they still oppose it? Maybe this was never about reducing emissions in the most economically sensible way but about reducing capitalism and increasing the size and the scope of the state. Last month, I reached out to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Environment. I asked if they could provide technical experts to explain the government's proposed protocol to reduce enteric emissions from beef cattle to farmers in my riding. After watching this train wreck of a government mishandle the communications about reducing nitrogen emissions on farms, I wanted to make sure my constituents knew exactly what the government was proposing. I naively thought the government would jump at the chance to prevent misinformation or promote its protocol. Instead, both offices took a pass on the offer. Considering the massive farm protests in Europe, a competent government would have jumped at the chance to engage with farmers. Therefore, it was up to me to explain to farmers what this socialist coalition government was proposing. Reducing enteric emissions is bureaucratic language for reducing cow burps. The proposal is that farmers could undertake measures to reduce methane emitted from belching beef cattle. In return, they would receive offset credits for every tonne of methane they reduce from a set baseline. Several farmers in my riding are pioneers in the field of capturing emissions. I wanted to ensure they would earn the credits for the innovations they are already undertaking. They are farmers like the Klaesi brothers, who built Canada's first biodigester to turn manure into electricity that they could sell back into the grid, and farmers like Don Russell, whose patented technology eliminates methane from manure. As the member of Parliament for these leading-edge farmers, I wanted to make sure they knew what was coming. While they had many questions, everything always circled back to the bottom line: How much will it cost? How much will they earn? They are basic questions everyone operating a business will ask. Unfortunately, the government does not have those answers, and not just because members could not be bothered to drive out to the Ottawa Valley. The government does not have the answer because it does not know. It even admitted it on its website. Here is what the government says about the price of the carbon offset credit: “The price of offset credits is primarily influenced by supply and demand. If there are many offset credits available with little demand, prices will be low. If there are few offset credits available and a large demand, prices will be higher.” There it is, in digital black and white. The offset credit is the real carbon price, a price that emerges from the intersection of supply and demand. A tax is set by government decree. The carbon tax is not a price on pollution. It is a tax on energy. It is a tax on mobility. It is a tax on life. The government knows what the tax on carbon is, and Canadians know the tax on carbon is going up on April 1. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to cancel the tax hike. Canadians know we are going to axe the tax, just like Canadians know that we will build more homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. The longer the tired, flailing NDP-Liberal socialist coalition ignores the will of Canadians, the bigger the reckoning will be. To increase the tax when everyone knows it is not long for this world is to rub salt in the wounds of high inflation. No amount of rebranding, gaslighting or fearmongering will work. It is time for the Liberals to listen to Canadians struggling with the cost of living fuelled by reckless Liberal spending. It is time for them to stop punishing Canadians for heating their homes. It is time for common sense.

1409 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:49:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Conservative members, including the member who just spoke, often talk about the impact of the carbon tax and how it is increasing inflation. They try to give the false impression that we are talking about 4%, 5% or even higher, in terms of percentages. I am going to quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who states, “The contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” What is interesting is that Statistics Canada suggests the carbon tax increases the average cost of food by about 0.33% relative to what it would be in the absence of the carbon tax. Can the member explain why the Conservative Party of Canada today continues to mislead Canadians on the important issue of inflation?

155 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/1/24 3:50:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say that getting rid of the carbon tax will decrease inflation immediately by 20%. Let me give a real-life example of what their carbon tax is doing. It takes energy to cut the trees that— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 3:50:59 p.m.
Watch

I am not sure what is going on here, but there seem to be more than a couple of people wanting to chime in on this response or make comments. I would just ask them to please hold off. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

48 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/1/24 3:51:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us talk about how the carbon tax is exacerbating one of the most critical pieces of Canadian life right now, our housing crisis. To cut the lumber, they need a machine to take down the trees. That machine takes energy. They then need a machine to drag those logs out of the forest and another picker to pick them up and put them on the truck. That takes energy. The truck has to go to the sawmill. That takes energy and carbon tax on the fuel for the truck. It gets to the sawmill and is taken off, and then the people who work at the lumber mill have to saw those logs so that they can be in the right shape to make homes. That sawing takes energy, and there is a tax on that. Finally, it gets shipped to the lumber yard, and the lumber yard brings it to the job site, and that costs carbon tax. All those taxes at each step along the way are one of the reasons their carbon tax is—

181 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 3:52:15 p.m.
Watch

I have to allow for other questions. The hon. member for Mirabel.

12 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/1/24 3:52:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Her speeches are always very interesting. My colleague said that, to her, a carbon tax is not a price on pollution. When I go to the grocery store, I buy oranges. I use a resource, the oranges, and I pay the price. When I buy paper, I use a resource, the paper. In exchange, I give an amount of money. That is the price. In the other provinces, except Quebec, when I use a resource such as CO2, I pay—

90 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 3:52:51 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members, if they want to have cross-conversations, to please take it outside. I am sure that when they are standing and answering questions or delivering their speeches, they do not appreciate when other people are interrupting them. I would ask all members to please be respectful. The hon. member for Mirabel.

57 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/1/24 3:53:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was simply saying that when we go to the store to buy oranges or paper, or when we use resources, we pay a price. It is a specific amount. When we create pollution and there is a tax per volume of pollution emitted, that is a price and it takes the form of a tax. My colleague seems to think that it is not a price on pollution. I am just going to ask her very simply to clarify something. Can she give me the definition of what she believes a price is?

96 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/1/24 3:53:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I explained that in terms of supply and demand. Just because a carbon tax is not itemized on one's grocery bill does not mean it is not there. It is insidious. It is hidden. Let us talk about groceries. They want to get rid of all one-use plastics. How are we going to get our fresh oranges that the member just talked about? They have to be put in plastic to protect them. Anyone who goes to Florida and picks them up will know they are in the plastic netting. What is worse is that a study came out today, and to get the value and the benefit of any reduction in the use of petroleum products out of a reusable grocery bag, that bag has to be used 710 times. A person can get more uses out of a plastic grocery bag that they can line their wastepaper basket with.

155 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/1/24 3:54:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start with the fact that the hon. member started her intervention talking about the socialist coalition, which makes me think she does not understand what socialism is or what a coalition is. I also want to say that from my perspective, what I see is both the Liberals and the Conservatives supporting big oil time and time again. I thought of a few other names. We have the “corporate coalition”, the “corrupt coalition”, the “co-opted by big oil coalition”, which, in fact, is CBC. We could use CBC as an acronym. Why does the member always side with big oil and never with the people in Canada who expect our oil and gas companies to pay their fair share?

131 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/1/24 3:55:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member does not realize I am from Ontario, but what I do support is the ability for my constituents and all Canadians to live a good life, to have a house to live in, to have food to eat, and to have hope for the future and a peaceful retirement where they do not need to worry about money when they go to sleep at night.

70 words

Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC)

Feb/1/24 3:56:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today and partake in this important discussion. It is a tough act to follow; my colleague from Renfrew did a great job. It is an honour to take part in this very important and timely debate on behalf of the great people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte. I have received countless communications from residents in my community who are concerned about the inflationary pressures they are facing due to the government's reckless policies. Under the Liberal government, there have been a record two million food bank visits in a single month, housing costs have doubled, mortgage payments are 150% higher than in 2015, violent crime is up 39%, tent cities exist in almost every major city, and over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. Just when it feels like it has all become too much, on top of the 30-year inflation highs that Canadians are facing just to live, the Prime Minister will increase the cost of the carbon tax on April 1 to reach $75 a metric ton. The impact will continue to increase, as the per tonne rate will rise to $170 by 2030. This will send families in my community further into economic despair. Despite being given every opportunity to make life more affordable for Canadians by removing the tax on their gas, home heating and groceries, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc all vote time and time again to raise taxes on the backs of hard-working Canadians who are struggling to feed their families. At the centre of this crisis are our hard-working Canadian farmers who work day in, day out to grow and raise the food we eat and who are disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax. The Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-234, has returned to the House and, if passed in its original form, would bring down both the cost of groceries and the tax burden on hard-working farmers by giving farmers a carbon tax carve-out for grain drying, barn heating and other operations. This bill would make the cost of food more affordable for everyone by saving farmers almost $1 billion between now and 2030, according to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, while Bill C-234 passed in the House, the Prime Minister's Senate appointees gutted our common-sense bill under pressure from the environment minister, who threatened to quit if the bill was passed. The Liberal, NDP and Bloc members who represent farmers, rural Canadians and any Canadian who is struggling to afford their grocery bill have this opportunity to reject the gutting of this legislation and bring home lower food prices for all Canadians. I sincerely hope they do the right thing. Farmers in my riding are counting on legislation like Bill C-234, and I wish to highlight a few of their stories. I have here with me, which I will use as reference, a bill from Enbridge Gas for a chicken farmer in my area. This is a large poultry operation. The bill in my hand shows a carbon tax of $2,700 on the cost of fuel used to dry their grains. The overall bill was just over $9,000, so one-third of that, not including the HST put on the bill, is the carbon tax. Shockingly, the carbon tax is actually more than the value of the gas before delivery and global adjustment. Moving on to the poultry side of the operation, this farm pays a comparable tax on the cost to heat its barns. Every 24 weeks it places over 3,000 day-old breeder chicks in the barns. These barns need to be heated to 32°C, as the chicks are so small they cannot heat themselves. This temperature is slowly reduced as the chicks grow stronger. The cost to heat the barns during this placement is approximately $7,000, with approximately a third of that cost being the carbon tax. It appears some of my colleagues from places like Toronto and Vancouver are not aware of how essential it is for farmers to dry their grain and heat their barns. It is a necessity, not a luxury, and there is no alternative. The burden this misguided tax places on farmers has a direct impact on the cost of food for Canadians. Farmers in my riding know better than anyone that when we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who transports the food, we tax the Canadians who buy the food, making everything more expensive. This is especially true for families in my community who are struggling to put food on their tables. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Between April 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, over 800,000 people in Ontario alone accessed a food bank. In total, there were 5.9 million visits to a food bank in this time period. The Barrie Food Bank, which is located in my riding, is currently seeing an incredibly high demand for services. In October, the Barrie Food Bank assisted nearly 7,000 clients, including 731 first-time visitors, which amounts to a 94% increase from last year alone. Sharon Palmer, the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank, told CTV News that “We are seeing more employed people than ever before, more large families, seniors, and more people on government support programs”. The crisis is getting worse. Projections show that, in 2024, there will be a 2.5% to 4.5% increase in food prices, with meat, vegetables and bakery items rising from 5% to 7%. Due to these rapidly rising prices, the “Canada Food Price Report 2024” says the following: It is important to note that Canadians are spending less on food...despite inflation. Food retail sales data indicates a decline from a monthly spend of $261.24 per capita in August 2022 to a monthly spend of $252.89 per capita in August 2023, indicating that Canadians are reducing their expenditures on groceries, either by reducing the quantity...of food they ...[buy] or by substituting less expensive alternatives. That means Canadians are skipping meals. They are buying lower-quality food. This is unacceptable in a G7 country, and the costly carbon tax is only making these inflationary pressures worse for Canadians who are struggling. For reference, I have another bill from Enbridge. It is from a senior in my area. Diane is in her 80s and lives off a pension. She intentionally reduces the heat in her apartment, keeping it low. Nonetheless, her bill is over $22 for the gas alone, and the carbon tax is $21. She is paying almost as much in carbon tax, not including the HST, as she is for the gas itself, just to heat her apartment. This is unacceptable. We know Diane is struggling, but we are here to try to help her by reducing the tax. The total cost of her bill for a month was $108. Seniors, especially those like Diane on fixed incomes, cannot afford yet another carbon tax increase. They are choosing between putting food on the table and heating their homes, and the Liberal government simply does not care. The Prime Minister and his environment minister have touted this costly tax program as being a great deal for Canadians. When it was first announced, they made it sound too good to be true. First, it would fight climate change and second, it would not cost Canadians a cent because the government would rebate whatever they spent. We know now that is not the case. In fact, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed what many common-sense Canadians already knew; they pay more in carbon tax than they get in rebates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that the carbon tax cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, and that is before the increase, even after the rebates. By 2030, the Prime Minister's two carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline, according to the same source. Let me be very clear. The carbon tax is not a climate plan. It is a tax plan that places an undue burden on families, small businesses and farmers. Meanwhile, the Liberal government has failed to meet a single solitary emissions target after eight years in power. In fact, Canada's environment commissioner has made it clear, once again, that Canada will not meet its climate targets, despite the Liberals' punitive taxes on Canadians. The government is not bothering to set implementation deadlines for 49% of its measures. It has also admitted that only 43% of their so-called “climate measures”, many of which are actually just taxation measures, will have any direct impact on emissions. The government's plan did not even bother to include a target or expected emission reductions for 95% of its measures. Conservatives have a real plan to bring home lower prices for Canadians. We would cap costs and stop wasteful government spending to bring down inflation and interest rates. A Conservative government would introduce a dollar-for-dollar law so that every dollar of new spending would be matched with a dollar of savings. Instead of creating more cash, we would create more of what cash buys. That means growing more food, building more homes and creating more energy right here at home through technology, not taxes. We will cancel the Prime Minister's tripling of the carbon tax that punishes hard-working Canadians just for buying food, filling up their cars and heating their homes. These things are not luxuries. They are necessities. Canadians should not be forced to choose between putting food on the table and heating their homes. The only way to reverse the damage the Liberal government has caused is by reversing the course and doing the opposite. Canadians want change. They want lower taxes, more homes, a balanced budget, safe streets and, most of all, they want a change in government. The common-sense Conservative promise is simple: We will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We will restore hope to our country and put Canadians back in control of their lives.

1727 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 4:06:14 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît on a point of order.

14 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/1/24 4:06:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, during question period today, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship misled the House by insinuating that the leader of the Bloc Québécois compared immigrants to heat pumps. That is not what he did. I think we need to listen closely to what the leader of the Bloc Québécois said because he was actually condemning the minister's refusal to reimburse Quebeckers for the costs they have incurred by generously welcoming asylum seekers to Quebec. Serious questions deserve serious answers from the minister, not contempt. Madam Speaker, I would ask that you have a listen and direct the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs to withdraw his remarks and apologize.

127 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273