SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mar/19/24 11:00:52 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in the member's statement. However, I will address something that he said. In 2019, that member ran on a commitment, with Erin O'Toole, to price carbon. He went door to door. An hon. member: That was not in 2019. Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, it was in 2021. I am sorry. I get confused because, in 2019, none of them even mentioned climate change as the failed leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, ran on a commitment to ignore climate change. The Conservatives realized that was a failed opportunity, and Erin O'Toole recognized that, if one would like to be the prime minister of this country, they needed to have a plan to lower our emissions and fight climate change. Clearly the member opposite has amnesia, or he has chosen to go back on his commitment to price carbon. I have a question for him. The amount his family will be receiving in the Canada carbon rebate is $1,504. That addresses affordability challenges for members of his community. It is also an incentive to lower our emissions. I hope that the member will join me in making sure his community is aware of that $1,504—

212 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/19/24 11:01:53 a.m.
Watch

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Victoria.

12 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/19/24 11:02:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it does feel as though the Conservatives do not have any plan to address the climate crisis. They cannot even really admit that there is a climate crisis. However, the Liberals have failed to communicate what their silver bullet solution is for carbon pricing. To double the rebate right now for rural Canadians and try to gain back some ground, they will be increasing the carbon price on small businesses. The Liberals already owe small businesses and indigenous groups $3.6 billion. Why would the Liberals not make big oil pay what it owes by implementing an excess profits tax? We just saw polling that says the majority of Canadians wants an excess profits tax on big oil and gas. Why will the Liberals not do it?

129 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Mar/19/24 11:02:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always say it is refreshing when I have the opportunity to discuss how we fight climate change with the member for Victoria. Instead of having to listen to Conservatives deny the existence of climate change and deny our leadership opportunity in lowering our emissions and fighting climate change, we get a refreshing opportunity with the New Democrats to discuss how we fight climate change. I agree with the member. The excess profits of the oil and gas industry are absolutely obscene. Not only that, but what they have done with the oil sands is an environmental disaster. I had the chance to visit Fort McMurray, and we have also heard testimony in the environment committee about the poisoning of the Kearl site through tailings ponds leakages. There needs to be more accountability from the oil and gas sector. It needs to pay for the mess it has made. We need to ensure that accountability and integrity are there throughout every aspect of our economy. Once again, I will say that it is refreshing to talk about how we will fight climate change in the House, not if we will fight climate change, which is always the case with the Conservatives.

203 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Mar/19/24 11:03:58 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something that was brought up by my colleague here on this side of the House, which was that the Prime Minister said the carbon tax would not be increased past $50 a tonne. I recently read Jody Wilson-Raybould's book, in which she said that she had realized that the Liberals will say whatever they have to say to get elected. It is obvious that this is just another broken promise from them. The member for Milton talked about emitting emissions. I have a very basic question. Does he believe that families that are heating their homes, putting fuel in their gas tanks to take their kids to hockey or to get to work, or feeding their families, are emitting emissions?

128 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Mar/19/24 11:04:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a reality in Canada that we live in a cold country in the winter, but it gets pretty warm in the summer. A lot of our goods come from far away, and that requires a lot of transportation costs. Canadians have a carbon footprint. There is a way we could increase that carbon footprint. We could ignore climate change and say to heck with it, we are just going to let carbon emissions fly and that we do not care about climate change. However, there is an alternative. We could consider a heat pump. We could consider more fuel-efficient vehicles. We could consider more locally grown produce and meat. These are ways to lower our carbon footprint. We are supporting Canadians through those choices. In Saskatchewan, where my colleague is from, there is a $1,504 rebate.

142 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 11:05:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are again discussing this today, after we have discussed it time and time again, but I think it was telling for the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek when the member for Milton said, which is quite reasonable, that we need to have a plan to fight climate change, and the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek said, no, we do not. That is the Conservative Party plan. An hon. member: You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that you do not have a plan. You need to be truthful in this place. Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, she is heckling me now because she is quite upset that I am calling her out. She thinks she can heckle and not be called out on it, but clearly, it is climate denial. She is trying to shout me down at the moment.

152 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/19/24 11:06:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have been trying to listen to this dismal debate, but people shouting at each other has lowered the tone even more than it normally would be, so I would ask you to let people say their dismal points so they can go on the record without this kind of bitter batter back and forth.

62 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Mar/19/24 11:07:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to clarify if, in fact, it is a point of order when a member absolutely misleads the House about what another member said during debate.

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/19/24 11:07:10 a.m.
Watch

I would caution members not to impugn what other members have said in their speeches to make sure that we treat everyone as honourable members, as we all accept in this chamber. I want to make sure we have a reasonable debate among members of the House.

47 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Mar/19/24 11:07:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member across the way clearly misled the House on something my colleague said. I think it is incumbent upon you as Speaker to have him withdraw a comment that was a direct and absolute intentional misrepresentation of something one of my colleagues on this side of the House said. The member is known for that. You know he is known for that, and it is about time somebody called him on it. I request that you do that, Mr. Speaker.

89 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Mar/19/24 11:08:09 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member yelled what I said she said. You can check Hansard and go back to the tapes. I am happy to come back if it was not what the member said. It was loud and clear, and it was caught by Hansard. I suggest you go back to check because it was very clear. To allow other members to impugn what I heard seems to be hypocritical for those members. They did not hear it and were not being yelled at. I was sitting next to the hon. member. This is preposterous.

95 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/19/24 11:08:48 a.m.
Watch

This is why we recognize an individual to speak, and there is a question and comment period afterward so people can be clear in their positions on whatever we are talking about. I would caution members not to put words in other people's mouths. It seems to happen an awful lot in the chamber, and it should not happen. I would ask members to be judicious in the words they use. We will go back to listen to the tapes if that is what we need to do to find out who said what when. I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue, but I will caution him. Maybe he could move on to his next point.

119 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Mar/19/24 11:09:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again the Conservatives are saying the quiet part out loud, which is that they deny the existence of climate change, an existential threat to humanity. They come back time and time again with slogans. I have said before that their only environmental plan is to recycle slogans in this place. They represent ridings across the country, ridings that are in drought, or that have suffered from fires, floods and hurricanes, which have been exacerbated by climate change. What do they do? They heckle, mock, and deny. They offer no plan for the future and mislead Canadians on what is actually increasing prices. The major increase that Canadians are suffering from, especially on food, is with respect to climate change. I have asked a number of Conservative members over the course of the last couple of years to explain to me why prices for food in the United States have increased at the same rate they have increased in Canada. They have increased at the same rate, even though there is not a national price on pollution in the United States. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are still heckling me. They cannot even accept the evidence before them that it is climate change. They cannot accept it from the farmers in their own ridings. I have seen it in Niagara with vine loss.

231 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/19/24 11:11:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we need to be accurate because this is for the historical record. My hon. colleague claimed that the Conservatives were heckling. I think it was just a bunch of grunts and snorts. I think he should be accurate about how the Conservatives are responding.

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/19/24 11:11:36 a.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. While I do appreciate the levity that the hon. member tries to bring to the House, let us try to be serious in the discussion we are having today.

36 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Mar/19/24 11:11:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I expect a little better from the member in the seriousness of this debate. I know he believes passionately about this. Speaking about farmers back home, just a couple of years ago we saw a 25% loss of vines in the grape industry in Niagara. We are seeing catastrophic losses in British Columbia. I know that some members represent those farmers. Again, as I said, there have been historic fires and floods. Those costs are borne by Canadians, and what do Conservatives have to say to those Canadians? They have no plan. There is nothing on the table, and those costs will continue to increase. People may not be able to get insurance. That is a reality as one's insurance costs will go up, but that is ignored. It is funny. The first time I heard a Conservative politician even mention a rebate was when the premier of the government in Saskatchewan was trying to reassure Saskatchewan residents that they should not worry as they would still get their rebates, and that is because Canadians look forward to seeing that. Conservatives ignore that whole aspect of it. They do not address it, and they make up numbers on the cost of the price on pollution, even though they know full well that Canadians, especially lower-income Canadians, are much better off. By cutting the price on pollution, the biggest recipient would be the oil companies, and they would not pass that along. As we have now seen, oil companies are having record profits. It is a commodity-based industry. They are not going to pass that profit onto us. This is about the Conservatives standing up for big oil, which is truly unfortunate. I believe some of them do understand that there is a climate crisis before us, but why is there no plan? All of them ran on pricing pollution. A couple of years ago it was fine for them to go door to door to say that they were going to price pollution. It was not a plan that I particularly agreed with, but it was nice that every party in this country, including every member sitting here, ran on pricing pollution, knowing we need an environmental plan. This evening there will be tributes to the late prime minister Brian Mulroney. In all of the speeches yesterday, there was talk of him being a great statesman. We are lucky as Canadians to have had him at the helm to work with the United States and other countries to get things done, whether that was for apartheid or environmental issues. One of those issues was pricing pollution. I think we can all remember the scourge of acid rain, what it was doing, the concerns Canadians had and the way to fix it. An hon. member: It was not a carbon tax. Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member heckled me that it is not a carbon tax. The way to fix it was to price pollution, to price the thing one did not want so one has less of it. This is cognitive dissonance. They cannot get it through their heads that this works. They can yell and try to shout me down, but it worked. Former prime minister Mulroney worked with his counterparts in the United States. They are laughing, which is unbelievably shocking. However, it worked. They worked with premiers across parties. They worked with the Liberal premier in Ontario. They worked with the president of the United States. They worked across the world to get a price on pollution so that they could eliminate the scourge of acid ran. We saw that it is not an issue. Canada can be a leader, which we choose to be, or we can go the Conservative way and just deny this incredible threat that is facing us. In 2015, Canada was on track for our emissions to grow to 815 megatonnes by 2030. Conservatives had no climate plan. It was free to pollute, and oil and gas companies were allowed to emit unlimited pollution. Our latest update projects that our emissions will be 467 megatonnes in 2030, which is 43% below where they should be. I would have thought that in this place we could all agree that we do not like pollution. I would have thought that this would be a consensus we could all come to. Unfortunately, it is not. As a result of our work, our emissions have declined by 7% since 2015 for the first time ever and we are on track to meet our climate targets. I occasionally speak of them as my two favourite constituents, Hannah and Ethan, who are my son and daughter. They are seven and five years old. I am disappointed that we do not have conversations about what the future will look like for them in 2030 or 2050. We look at a party that only wants there to be profits for oil companies right now. I am hoping that for the rest of day we can have that debate.

845 words

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

Mar/19/24 11:18:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. First, I want to wish my father a happy birthday today. On a more sombre note, I also want to recognize the life of a constituent, Ms. Gemma Bittante, who passed away recently. She was a pillar in my life, a pillar in the Italian community and somebody who will be greatly missed. She gave hours and hours of volunteer work and made me hot dogs when I was just a little kindergarten student. May perpetual light shine upon her. I wish her family the best in this difficult time. I listened with intent to my hon. colleague's speech. He spoke about disincentivizing, and that is my word, not the word he used, certain behaviours and we tax those. In my view, the problem with the carbon tax is that we cannot disincentivize people from eating, and the carbon tax impacts the price of food. One cannot disincentivize people from driving when they have a rural location. How can this lead to the result that the Liberal Party wants when the reality is that people need to do the things it is trying to curtail?

206 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Mar/19/24 11:19:24 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, the rebate is not mentioned, which covers the things he is talking about. Farmers are exempt. Farm diesel is exempt from the price on pollution. We can incentivize car companies, for example. The auto industry is one of the most innovative in the world when it comes to greening up. We have much more fuel-efficient vehicles precisely because of initiatives by government and regulation in terms of making cars less polluting. I know that they would like to throw that away, but I honestly believe that the member, who comes from a province that has suffered from the severe impacts of climate change, wants to see action rather than saying that we do not care, which seems to be where the Conservative Party is right now.

130 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Mar/19/24 11:20:17 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who worked to implement the carbon tax, spoke to the media yesterday. She said that the Liberal government had done a poor job of selling its own environmental and economic measure and that it was a shame the Conservatives had completely taken control of the narrative. She wondered how this could have happened. According to her, the Minister of Finance apparently was not too keen on the idea of environmental measures and was more on the side of the oil companies. This is information that was recently revealed by the media. Can my colleague tell me when the Liberals are finally going to take back control of the narrative and defend the measure they put in place, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Incidentally, this measure is not going to do the job on its own. The government should put other measures in place so that we can meet our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

163 words