SoVote

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

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Mar/19/24 12:36:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today, the leader of the official opposition brings up the idea that he is interested in Canadians and he is interested in making life more affordable for Canadians, but we know that he voted against a national school program. We know he voted against our motion to take GST off of home heating. He voted against dental care. He voted against child care. Even yesterday, shockingly, he voted against getting humanitarian aid to Palestinians who are starving to death. He does not care about Canadians. He does not care about people around the world. He has already said he would cut foreign aid. He has already said that he would cut all of these programs that make life more affordable for people. He is a one-trick pony with nothing to offer Canadians and Canadians know that.

139 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Mar/19/24 12:37:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is another nasty partisan attack from the desperate NDP. She is an Alberta NDP member who is being abandoned by her own provincial party. The NDP in Alberta is so ashamed and embarrassed of her that it is breaking ties with the federal NDP. In fact, the provincial NDP in Alberta knows that her party sold out Albertans to sign on with the most anti-Alberta Prime Minister in 40 years. She is now voting to bring in a $2,943 carbon tax on her own constituents. Every family in her riding will pay almost $3,000 in carbon taxes because she voted with the Liberal Prime Minister, against her constituents, to hike the tax. Only common-sense Conservatives stand for Albertans, to spike the hike and axe the tax.

133 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Mar/19/24 12:39:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been looking back in Hansard. In the last few years, 36 members of the Liberals, which is actually 37 because one member added it today, stated that the carbon tax was revenue neutral. Who says it is not? Public accounts actually said, last year, that $670 million of the carbon tax was used for government programming. Does that sound like the carbon tax is revenue neutral as the Liberals are claiming?

75 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Mar/19/24 12:39:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no, it sounds like the government wins and the taxpayers lose. It takes in more money in direct tax revenues from the carbon tax than it pays back out in rebates. Worse than that, according to the PBO, the carbon tax destroys so much economic activity that it leaves people worse off than the direct carbon tax that they paid, and that is why, when we combine the economic and the fiscal cost to the average family, Canadians are losers. However, the good news is that when common-sense Conservatives spike the hike and axe the tax, Canadians will be winners again.

104 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Mar/19/24 12:40:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-375

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, but I have to say, it is such a challenge to follow in the footsteps of my leader on this very specific issue. Canadians are once again being forced to deal with an unfortunate government decision to take even more money out of taxpayers' pockets. According to the Liberal plan, in just a few days, on April 1, the carbon tax will increase. We are not talking about a small hike of 3% or 4% because of inflation. We are talking about a 23% increase. Such a dramatic tax hike is something that happens rarely, if ever. Unfortunately, the Liberal carbon tax has the blind support of the NDP and the enthusiastic support of the Bloc Québécois, which desperately wants to drastically increase the carbon tax. That is their choice. It is their decision. It is not ours. Canadians are struggling right now. We saw some sad incidents in Montreal where the police had to intervene because hundreds and hundreds of people were getting impatient when trying to access the food bank. Canada is a G7 country. Montreal is the capital of francophone America, but unfortunately, it is facing terrible situations like these. This is not the Canada that I love. Canada needs to do a lot better. People are being crushed under the weight of financial hardship, and housing prices and rents have tripled. Meanwhile, this government, to help taxpayers, wants to raise the carbon tax on April 1. That is not the right choice. Some will say we need to address climate change. Yes, we recognize that climate change is real and must be addressed, but with pragmatic measures, not dogmatic ones. What is the government's track record? Think back to when the Liberals got elected in 2015. They were so proud to say “Canada is back”. A few weeks after the election, the Prime Minister arrived in Paris, all proud and happy, saying that Canada was back and that there would finally be concrete measures to control global pollution and that Canada would be a leader. The founder of Equiterre, who is now a minister and is currently being sued by Equiterre, was saying he was proud to be Canadian and to see the Prime Minister talking like that. Is Canada back? Canada is way back. That is the reality. After eight years of this Liberal government, after eight years of lecturing from the Liberal Prime Minister, after eight years of imposing and increasing the Liberal carbon tax, what has this government achieved? Zilch. Not a single target has been reached, except during COVID-19. I hope the plan is not to shut down the economy, as we had to do during COVID-19, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is not among the 13 countries that met the Paris Agreement targets. Canada actually ranks 62nd out of 67 countries in terms of climate change performance. Despite all the announcements, all the words, all the commitments and all the ambitious targets, the Canadian government, this government's Liberal Canada, comes in 62nd out of 67. That is not according to the MEI, the Fraser Institute or the Conservative Party. That is according to the UN. Every year, the UN presents its rankings at COP. At the latest COP, which was held in Dubai, Canada ranked 62nd. I will have the opportunity to talk about the minister's trip to Dubai in committee a little later. This is not something we are happy about. It hurts to say it, but it is the truth. The Liberals were too focused on a dogmatic approach instead of a pragmatic one. If the Liberal carbon tax worked, we would know it, but it is not working. That is why the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition, mentioned an article published in today's edition of the Journal de Montréal under the headline “For the first time in history, Canada is the most polluted country in North America”. According to the article, the 13 most polluted cities in North America are all in Canada. That is the Liberal record after eight years of government lectures. No one is happy about it, but that is the reality. We believe that we have to get rid of the Liberal carbon tax, and we are not the only ones who feel that way. Seven of Canada's provincial premiers cannot all be wrong at the same time. Seven provincial premiers have asked the Liberal government to drop this policy, which will cause inflation and, most significantly, leave taxpayers with even less money in their pockets. One such premier is the very Liberal premier of Newfoundland. Although I do not know him personally, he is someone who, like all Canadians, sees a tax hike of this magnitude as a very bad idea. The 23% increase comes at a time when everyone is struggling with housing, the cost of living or the price of food. Regrettably, we are not even talking about the price of food anymore, but about the incidents happening at food banks. That is not the Canada we want. For that reason, as Conservatives, we support pragmatic approaches above all. Climate change is real and we have to deal with it. In his speech at our national convention in Quebec City last September, the “Quebec City speech”, as we call it here, our leader described our party's vision and the pillars of action that we intend to focus on in our fight against climate change. This was done at a Conservative national convention. Some 2,500 delegates from across Canada, representing all 338 ridings, gathered in my region, Quebec City. I am very proud of that. The reason I am explaining the partisan political framework for this announcement is that, quite often, when people do not want to talk about something, they announce it on a Friday afternoon at 4 p.m. in a brief press release. They say thank you, have a good night, and no one talks about it. In contrast, I am talking about a milestone speech for our party. In English, I would say that it was a milestone speech by our leader in front of 2,500 members and supporters of our party, from coast to coast among the 338 ridings, who attended this convention. That milestone speech by our leader, le discours de Québec, was very important. We set the table for the next government, if we receive that support. We would be honoured to receive the support of Canadians. This environmental plan is built on four pillars. The fundamental objective is to reduce pollution. The government has demonstrated that pollution cannot be reduced by taxing it. We believe that what we need are very pragmatic measures, not dogmatic ones. The first pillar would be to provide tax incentives for companies to use high-tech solutions to reduce pollution. The companies are the ones creating the greenhouse gases, and they know why they create pollution. It is up to the companies to decide for themselves. They are the ones that know why they create pollution and how to reduce it. They should be incited and encouraged to do so through tax incentives. The second pillar of the Conservatives' action on the environment would be to green-light green projects. Now more than ever, we need green energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear power. We need these green energy sources. We need to green-light green projects. I am pleased to see that my colleagues opposite are smiling at this proposal. We introduced Bill C-375 to speed up the process. I am pleased to know that the Liberals are going to vote for it, and no doubt the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will have an opportunity to explain why he thinks this is an excellent idea. The third pillar would be the Canadian advantage. Here in Canada, we have everything we need to deal with climate change and everything we need in terms of natural resources, energy and knowledge. We just need to use them. I am from Quebec. HEC Montréal published its “State of Energy in Quebec” report a few weeks ago. It found that consumption of petroleum products increased by 7% over the past year. The thing that worries me the most is that 48% of the products consumed comes from the U.S. energy sector, more specifically from Texas and Louisiana. I have nothing against those two states, but as long as we are using fossil fuels, we should be getting them from Canadian sources instead of sending millions of dollars to another country. The fourth pillar, and quite likely the foundation of all of this, would be to work hand in hand with first nations to address climate change. We are against radically increasing the carbon tax on April 1. Seven provincial premiers cannot all be wrong. On the contrary, they are right. I would like this government to give Canadians a break and scrap the idea of increasing the Liberal carbon tax.

1550 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/19/24 12:50:23 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments. Now is the appropriate time for the hon. deputy government House leader to make a comment, and not while someone else has the floor. The hon. deputy House leader.

32 words

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

Mar/19/24 12:50:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the leader quite a bit, but I think he is being a little humble. He, too, was a leader. He was the leader of the ADQ, which later became and is now known as the CAQ in Quebec. When he was the leader, he voted with the National Assembly of Québec, unanimously, to bring in cap and trade, which is another form of a price on pollution. As a matter of fact, the last person to speak in the National Assembly was this member, when he said, “We are satisfied that there will be a register of greenhouse gas emissions, and the fact that all the information will be public confirms the desire for transparency that unites us here in this House.” That is what the member said just before he participated in a unanimous vote to bring in pricing pollution in Quebec. I am wondering if he could inform the House as to why he has had such a dramatic change of heart, and if he no longer believes in that system that he voted for.

187 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Mar/19/24 12:51:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have seen the member do far better than this. However, to address, first of all, the quote that the member gave, I can repeat it without any question, because it has nothing to do with the price on pollution. We were talking about the registry on emissions of gas. That has nothing to do with this policy. That happened 11 years ago. Since then, after more than 10 years of the application of a cap-and-trade system, we recognize, and I am not quoting myself but the environment minister of Quebec, that with that system, $233 million is leaving Quebec and going to California. I do not think that California is a third world country. It is not a developing country. I do not think it needs Quebec money. I think Quebec can deal with this situation by itself.

143 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Mar/19/24 12:52:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. For a moment, let us pretend that he is in front of a jury and has to tell the whole truth. If we were to abolish the carbon tax or oppose the increase, does that mean that tomorrow morning, no one would need to use food banks, rents would drop drastically, the world would be a better place, the cost of groceries would go down and we would be contributing to climate change? Is this really what my colleague wants Quebeckers and Canadians to believe?

96 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Mar/19/24 12:53:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I notice that the member used the word “drastically”. That happens to be the word that her colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert used when he said that the government and governments should drastically increase carbon taxes. I assume that the member and all Bloc Québécois members are quite happy that the Liberal carbon tax is going to increase by 23%. Perhaps that is not enough in their eyes, and it should go up even more. People are having to line up at food banks. This is hurting all Canadians and Quebeckers, in every riding. There is not one riding that is more affected by this reality than any other. Thankfully, there are volunteers who work very hard, like those I had the opportunity to meet and support this weekend. When people are out there lining up, is it a good idea to raise taxes and take even more money out of their pockets when they are already struggling? The answer is no. If some people think it is a good idea, all they have to do is keep voting for the Bloc Québécois. They want to drastically increase carbon taxes, but we do not.

207 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/19/24 12:54:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague very much, but we lived through the Harper years, when the lineups at food banks doubled and the cost of housing doubled. We also heard the same speeches as the one the member just gave. In 2006, the Conservatives told us that they would take care of the environment. What happened? We became the fourth-worst country in the world with respect to emissions that contribute to climate change. The Conservative government was a disaster for the environment. My question for my colleague is simple, and I know that he is sincere. Why does he align himself with the Conservative Party, a party that denies climate change?

113 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Mar/19/24 12:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also have a great deal of respect for my veteran colleague, who obviously does very good work in the House. However, he is totally wrong. I started my speech by saying that climate change is real and that we need to address it. We need to deal with it constructively and effectively. We do not believe that the Liberal tax on carbon will resolve this situation. The Liberals' dogmatic approach of drastically increasing taxes, which is supported by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, is not going to solve anything. Instead, we need meaningful action to reduce pollution.

105 words

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

Mar/19/24 12:56:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. The only thing the Conservatives want to axe is the rebates people are getting. They have no interest in helping to provide for Canadians, especially in their time of need, and we have seen that through various votes. We have seen that through the initiatives that the Leader of the Opposition has taken this week, what he has said and what he has directed his members to do, which I will get to in a second. What they really want to axe is the Canada carbon rebate. That is it. The Canada carbon rebate currently provides, or will provide, in this fiscal year, on average, to each family, the following: Alberta, $1,800; Manitoba, $1,200; Saskatchewan, $1,500; Nova Scotia, $825; P.E.I., $880; Newfoundland and Labrador, $1,192; New Brunswick, $760; and in my province of Ontario, $1,120. That is an average. I will give members the raw data as to how people are benefiting and how more people are better off through those rebates they are getting than what they are paying. I took the opportunity to do the exercise myself. I went back to 2023 and dug up all my gas bills from Enbridge for heating my home. I calculated the federal carbon amount that was added to each bill, and after adding up through 2023, it came to $379.93 that was paid in 2023. I drive an electric car, but I wanted to be as fair as I could, so I looked up how much fuel is needed for a car for the average person. The average is 1,667 litres. I then multiplied that by the federal carbon tax for 2023, and it brought me up to $238. Let us assume that because I live in a household where we have two cars, we have to multiply that by two. After all is said and done, taking into account what I paid to Enbridge for the carbon tax and what I would have paid through purchasing gas at a gas station, the total amount that I paid in 2023 was $855. In my household, I receive the rebate directly into my bank, and when I looked at my bank statement, the amount I received in 2023 was $885. Before even considering any initiatives that I could have taken, and I have taken some, for example, I am driving an electric car, but before even taking any initiatives— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I hear Conservatives heckling me. I will not name names, because that would not be fair, but I have sat in the House and had Conservative members walk up and say, “Hey, Mark, by the way, just so you know, I drive an electric now, and I absolutely love the car.” Of course, they would never actually get up in the House of Commons and say that, because that would go against their entire narrative. In the interest of protecting the identity of the people who have done that, I will not say who they are, but I get a kick out of how they are heckling me now while I am saying this. Before I even attempt to do anything to improve my carbon footprint, just from the basic math, I am already ahead. The reality is that 94% of households with incomes below $50,000 a year get rebates that exceed their carbon taxes. I have demonstrated to members that in a household of four with two vehicles, it is already very plausible. When we start to tap into some of the many initiatives that the federal and many provincial governments have to make one's home more efficient, to install heat pumps, for example, to make conversion away from fossil fuels, we can very quickly see that if I put a heat pump in my home, that $379 I paid in 2023 no long exists, and I will be receiving in excess of $380 a month. If we also add into that the various other initiatives I could take and the choices I could make, I would end up even further ahead. It is very clear that the vast majority of Canadians receive more than they pay. I was very relieved to hear today, and I have heard on a number of occasions, the House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, at least starting to talk about the rebates. Earlier today, I actually heard him concede that, by his information, 40% of households are getting more back. I say that we are at a place where we can work toward educating the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I do not think we are that far off before we can get him from that 40% to the real number of 80%. At least Conservatives are starting to come around. However, make no mistake about it. Conservatives want to axe the Canada carbon rebate, which is money that is being put into the pockets of Canadians, that is helping to deal with the effects of climate change and that is incentivizing them to make more energy efficient choices in their homes or in what they drive. Even if one only moves from a gasoline-only vehicle to a hybrid vehicle, one will start to see savings. One does not even have to go all-electric. Again, that just further increases the excess amount one receives as opposed to what one pays. I do not want to leave the impression that Conservatives are interested in any way in helping Canadians. That has been said in the House already. The Leader of the Opposition, on March 14, sent a letter to his MPs saying that Conservatives will stand in the House and will force votes they can oppose on many different items in order to perpetuate and continue the false narrative Conservatives currently have that the vast majority of people are not getting more back more than they are paying. Let us talk about some of those things. Perhaps Conservatives will be a little smarter this time around when we go through a marathon voting session. Perhaps they will more strategically pick what they might want to vote against, because they are lining themselves up to vote against things that are based on communication from the Leader of the Opposition and that are based on a false narrative; he believes the price on pollution is not actually putting more into the pockets of Canadians. Conservatives are lining themselves up this week to vote, once again, against three motions that affect Ukraine. These represent over 15 million dollars' worth of equipment to Ukraine, Operation Unifier supports Ukraine with $130 million, and then $285 million goes to Operation Reassurance to assist Ukraine. They are going to vote against RCMP members who have been injured on duty, which is at a cost of $20 million. Over $1 million is for Reaching Home programs to help address homelessness, and $12.5 million is for the collection of banned assault firearms. The very heat pump program I talked about earlier, which provides over $40 million in grants to Canadians, they will be voting against it. There is an anti-racism strategy, a round table on missing and murdered indigenous girls and LGBTQ+ people, which is over $1 million, and of course, there is the Canada housing benefit, which represents over $100 million. The Leader of the Opposition has set up a false narrative that people do not get back more than they pay into the price on pollution when the vast majority do. He is willing to hedge his bets on that false narrative and, at a cost of doing so, is going to vote against all those items I just listed. I would strongly encourage the Conservative Party of Canada members to have a good look and self-reflect on where they have come over the last number of years, from Stephen Harper, who spoke in favour of a price on pollution, up to their most recent leader and their most recent election campaign, when they knocked on doors and talked about pricing pollution. It is time to have serious look in the mirror and to reflect on exactly what it is they stand for. The reality is that the only thing they are showing themselves to stand for now is misinformation.

1411 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Mar/19/24 1:05:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about electric vehicles and about having options moving forward, and I think doing more for the environment is always possible. They have done very little in their eight years. We see that they are 63rd out of 68 countries in reaching environmental targets, so they have been failing. Basically, they have a tax plan. A little over two years ago, my wife and kids were caught in a storm with my friend. The storm was so bad that they hit the ditch. If they had been in an electric vehicle, because they were in that ditch for eight and a half hours and no one could get to them, they would have frozen to death. It was lucky my friend had filled up the vehicle. An electric vehicle would not have lasted that long in -30°C weather. How much is the life of my family worth to him when he forces choices on Canadian people?

162 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/19/24 1:06:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to perhaps fly into Toronto one day. I would be happy to pick him up at Pearson, and I would like to drive him to Ottawa so that he can have the experience of driving in an electric vehicle. What he just said there is factually incorrect. They had a full tank of gas, and they could have kept the heat on for eight hours. That is great. If I have a full battery, I can keep the heat on for days. The heat is not what drains an electric car battery; it is the actual driving, as is the case for a combustion vehicle. That comment is based on a widely circulated, hugely misinformed meme that is out there, and I cannot believe he even brought it up in the House of Commons. I know the meme he is talking about. It is false, and it is misinformation. If my battery is full and I end up in a ditch, I can sit there for three or four days if I am just producing heat.

183 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/19/24 1:07:33 p.m.
Watch

I do want to remind the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan that he had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has anything to follow up with, then he should wait until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

46 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Mar/19/24 1:07:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always kind of question the government's budgetary choices— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

18 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/19/24 1:07:53 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan seem to want to go back and forth. As I said, it is not the appropriate time. I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to hear the question that is being asked of him so that he will be able to answer it. Again, if individuals have questions and comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

89 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Mar/19/24 1:08:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question is really about questioning the government's choices. There are a lot of things I do not understand about this country, but let us just focus on the Liberal government's budgetary choices. There is a homelessness crisis going on right now. It has been going on in Quebec for five years. In fact, since the federal government launched the national housing strategy, homelessness in Quebec has doubled. There is also homelessness in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. This is really serious. There is only one federal program that deals with homelessness, and that is the Reaching Home program. Now we have learned that the program will be cut by 3% for the next two years. This 3% cut seems crazy to us. It seems like the Liberals want to show the Conservatives that they are capable of fiscal restraint, so they are making cuts all over the place, including to services for the homeless. Recent budgets announced $83 billion in tax credits for oil companies by 2035, and yet services for the homeless are being cut by 3%. I would like my colleague to explain that to me.

194 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/19/24 1:09:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the member is concerned about homelessness and initiatives this government has put forward, I would encourage him to not be tempted into voting against all the opposed items the Conservatives will be putting up. As I indicated, two of them, the Reaching Home program to address homelessness and the Canada housing benefit, are on the chopping block as a result of the opposed items the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. The reality of the situation is that, while he says we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, we have phased out the fossil fuel subsidies. The only way we continue to subsidize, in any way, the fossil fuel industry is to help to deal with abandoned orphan oil wells. That member might that think that it is not our problem, because they were companies from 50 years ago. We should leave the wells there, and that would be the end of that. Unfortunately, governments at the time did not think it was good to ensure that the proper money was in place to deal with those wells later on, so now society has to pick up the tab. That is the unfortunate reality. However, it is something that we have to do in our environmental interests.

211 words