44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 19, 2024 10:00AM
- Mar/19/24 3:13:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite, but what I respect most of all is that he actually was not here when we were voting on Bill C-75. That piece of legislation actually enhanced the penalties on summary conviction for auto theft, something that most of his colleagues voted against. He was not here, so I will excuse him on that one.
On the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, there is a guy named Ben Perrin. He might remember that individual. He used to be the lead adviser to a guy named Stephen Harper. Ben Perrin has been on the record as saying that mandatory minimum penalties were a gross error, a miscarriage of justice, and perpetuate systemic racism. That is why we reversed them. I wish these guys would get on board.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, auto theft in Toronto has nearly doubled over last year, and 2024 has only just begun. Where do the stolen vehicles go? They go to the port of Montreal.
I would like to commend the efforts of Sûreté du Québec police in February. That said, the federal government must do more to help them. That is why our leader has proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to bring back tougher sentences for car thieves and to give the ports the resources they need to stop the crime.
Does the Liberal government realize that its strategy to combat auto theft is not working?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:14:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to crime in our communities and auto theft, we have made these issues a priority with our investments in the port of Montreal. A few weeks ago, we announced $28 million for auto theft. In addition, there was $121 million to help police officers. There was also about $15 million to help the Canada Border Services Agency at the border itself.
Our investments are what we need to do to address this extremely important issue and promote safety in our communities.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:15:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that no one in this country should ever spend their days in pain because they cannot afford to see a dentist. Oral health is health.
I heard from seniors in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that the new Canadian dental care plan is going to make a real difference in their quality of life, yet the Conservatives just do not care. The Conservatives voted against dental care for Canadians, and we know that Conservatives always choose cuts over care.
Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services please let Canadians know how many people have applied for the program, and how many seniors will lose their dental coverage if the Conservatives get their way?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:15:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to advise my colleague that, thanks to his efforts, more than 1.5 million Canadians have successfully enrolled in our dental care program. Today those 70 and older can apply, and children and people with disabilities can apply starting in June. In total, we expect nine million Canadians to benefit.
I do not understand why Conservatives want to take dental care away from more than one in five Canadians. If we all work together, Canadians can make sure that Conservatives never have that opportunity.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:16:22 p.m.
- Watch
Before I pass the floor to the hon. member for Victoria, I am going to ask the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who is an experienced member, to not shout out his comments and to allow members who have the floor to respond.
The hon. member for Victoria now has the floor.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:16:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, “It's like an elephant sitting on my chest.”
That is how a child in Edmonton describes the air quality right now. Canada currently has the worst air quality in North America. Our kids are breathing in harmful toxins and it is only going to get worse with this year's wildfire season. However, the Liberals are acting like it is business as usual, breaking climate promises while handing out billions to Canada's biggest polluters. The Conservatives cannot even agree on whether climate change is real.
Will the Liberals stop putting the interests of oil and gas CEOs over the health and safety of our children?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:17:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are doing exactly that. We are the first country, the only country, in the G20 to have phased out fossil fuel subsidies, two years ahead of everyone else. We are the only country that has committed to eliminating public financing for fossil fuel subsidies. We have the best performance of all G7 countries in terms of greenhouse gas reduction between 2019 and 2021. We are working to fight climate change. We are working to improve air quality all across the country.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:18:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, Flair cancelled one of its flights back to Canada and left over 100 passengers stranded in another country: no communication with them, no food provided and no re-booking on other airlines. They had to find their own way back to this country.
If this sounds like deja vu, it is because the exact same thing happened two years ago and the Liberals promised to stand up to the big airline CEOs.
To the minister, will he tell these passengers why his supposedly new and improved air passenger rights let them down so badly?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:18:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for Canadians and always stand up for passengers' rights. There was nothing before we came in. We are in touch with Flair and with other airline companies to see what we can do.
We will always side with our air passengers.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Kings—Hants.
It is my absolute pleasure, as always, to be speaking on behalf of the residents in my riding of Davenport. I will be speaking to today's opposition day motion that was put forward by the Conservatives on affordability and pollution pricing. I will start with a few of my own comments and then I will go into a bit of prepared text.
As members know, climate change is real. Carbon emissions are impacting our climate and causing the climate to change. If Canada does not continue to rapidly move toward reducing emissions now, the cost of waiting will be more expensive for Canadians later. As a result, it will be a world that will be more difficult and more unpredictable to live in.
Last week, I happened to have been blessed to have the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in my riding, and the question of the carbon tax came up by a Davenport resident, who said that given the fact that Canadians were suffering an affordability crisis and as of April 1 the price on pollution would go up, should people believe the Leader of the Opposition who was trying to convince a lot of Canadians that the price on pollution was a tax that would hurt Canadians?
The minister responded by saying that there were the facts and then there was perception, that putting a price on pollution would be the most economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions and that if people asked 100 economists, 99 and a half of them would tell them that it was true. He went on to say that the way in which we had structured it was to do it in a way that would make it affordable for Canadians. Therefore, eight out of 10 Canadian families would get more money back than they paid, and it worked directly disproportionate to income. Those who lived on the most modest means would get much more money back than they actually paid. The people who received less money back than they paid were people who lived in 6,000 square foot houses, had a Hummer in their driveway and a boat in the backyard. At the end of the day, the fact that they paid more was because they were polluting more.
It was also noted that the Premier of Saskatchewan had decided that he would stop remitting the price on pollution for home heating. As a direct result of that, the rebate would go down for people in Saskatchewan, and the people who would suffer most would be the those people who were living on modest incomes. The premier was making poor people poorer because of the choices that he was making.
The motion before us is also proposing to do that for Canadians.
In 2023, we saw a record fire season in Canada in which the area burned was more than double that of the historic record, with hundreds of thousands of Canadians evacuated from their homes as a result. The total area burned exceeded 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years.
In its 2020 report on climate risks and their implications for the insurance industry in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada also concluded that “The average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1-billion a year to $5-billion a year, and must be accompanied by an increase in premium income.” It is clear that there are very real costs associated with having one's house burn down or having to flee one's home and job due to an evacuation order.
We also know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages reductions across the economy, while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. It creates incentives for Canadian business to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services, and when it is done right, and we are doing that in Canada, it is both effective and affordable for Canadians.
On the Canada carbon rebate, the bulk of the proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system goes straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 households in these provinces continuing to get more money back through their quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system.
The federal government understands that we need to maintain the price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down, but at the same time we have also shown that we are willing to be flexible and innovative in supporting options that will go even further to cut down on climate pollution in the long run.
We took temporary and targeted action to pause the fuel charge on heating oil with the goal of getting consumers off home heating oil and onto a cleaner and far more affordable alternative solution that will save them thousands of dollars and lower carbon emissions over the long run.
Measures such as this will make life more affordable in the right way, while supporting the goal of achieving a prosperous, low-carbon future for all Canadians.
We know that there are better ways to make life more affordable for Canadians, ways that do not involve destroying the environment and incurring more devastating costs further down the road. We are delivering this support where it is most effective, including with the oil to heat pump affordability program, which will increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000. It includes proposing, under Bill C-59, a doubling of the Canada carbon rebate rural top-up rate, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the base rebate amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families that are dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city. We have been very clear that we will continue to implement our pollution pricing system while ensuring that we continue to put more money into the pockets of Canadian households and families.
More recently, through Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023, we introduced measures to advance the government’s fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It introduces measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada’s competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government’s broader plan to work with industry towards the goal of decarbonization. This includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit, which is also known as CCUS.
CCUS is a suite of technologies that capture carbon dioxide emissions, whether from fuel combustion, from industrial processes or directly from the air, either to store CO2, typically deep underground, or to use it in other industrial processes, such as mineralization in concrete. These technologies are an important tool for reducing emissions in high-emitting sectors, where other pathways to reduce emissions may be limited or unavailable. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency each include CCUS deployment as an important element of scenarios in which the world achieves net-zero emissions. For its part, the CCUS investment tax credit will not only help Canadian companies adopt clean technologies but will also create jobs, ensure Canadian businesses remain globally competitive and reduce Canada’s emissions at the same time.
In conclusion, making life more affordable for Canadians while protecting the environment has always been a priority for the federal Liberal government, and it remains a priority today. I have outlined over the last 10 minutes just a few examples of how we are making targeted and responsible investments to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family. Making life more affordable is a key part of that.
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on this opposition day motion about affordability and pollution pricing.
I am now very happy to take any questions.
1503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:30:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, two years ago this week, the member for Davenport stated that the carbon tax was 100% revenue neutral for the government, yet Finance Canada in the public accounts stated that $670 million from last year alone was kept by the government and not redistributed. In fact, the public accounts actually said a couple of years ago that $100 million was kept for government programming.
I wonder if the member would like to correct her statement from two years ago and come forward with the real facts on what the carbon tax is, which is not revenue neutral.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:31:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, climate change is real. We have to take as many steps as possible to move to a low-carbon future and a low-carbon economy. The most efficient and affordable way for us to do is to put a price on pollution, which is also known as a carbon tax. We, as a government, are not keeping any of the money. We are directly giving it back to Canadians, to small businesses and to farmers. That is what we are doing.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:32:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is on my mind is persons with disabilities. What is on my mind right now is the fact that persons with disabilities are not receiving the Canada disability benefit yet and that persons with disabilities are experiencing very high levels of housing need, rent and food pricing.
I wonder if the member from the Liberals could share why the government is holding back on the Canada disability benefit and why it refuses to tax outsized profits from those large organizations that are making money hand over fist while persons with disabilities suffer.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:33:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Davenport, we are huge supporters of the Canada disability benefit. We know that federal budget 2024 will be announced in the House on April 16, and I am hoping for good news for a Canada disability benefit.
In the meantime, starting fiscal year April 1, under the Canada carbon rebate, a family of four will receive $1,800 in Alberta; $1,200 in Manitoba; $1,120 in Ontario; $1,500 in Saskatchewan; $760 in New Brunswick; $824 in Nova Scotia; $880 in Prince Edward Island; and $1,192 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back than they pay on the price on pollution. We need to continue to help support Canadians as we move to a low-carbon future.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:34:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by that response from the member for Davenport. I hope she will continue to advocate for the government to fund the Canada disability benefit in budget 2024.
With respect to this motion and the speech we heard, I am encouraged that she knows the impacts of the climate crisis, but I am discouraged to hear about carbon capture being called a “responsible” investment. She and others need to know that it is completely irresponsible. It is a new way of subsidizing the oil and gas industry to the tune of billions of dollars, and more often than not, it actually emits more carbon than it extracts.
Will she commit to doing more research on carbon capture and having good conversations, which I know she has on many other topics in the House, to investigate the real solutions to the climate crisis, recognizing that carbon capture is not one of them?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:35:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his passion. We both care a lot about climate change. We both care about moving aggressively toward a net-zero future in Canada.
I will always consider all new research and information. For me, what is most important is our objective of getting to net zero and doing it in an affordable, sustainable way for Canadians.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be in the House. I am glad to see that my colleagues are starting to appreciate my work and that my name and my title in Nova Scotia are becoming known.
I am living rent free in the member for Carleton's head right now. He has been calling me out a lot, and I hope he will come back into the chamber to ask me questions in a format that I am able to respond to today. I would invite my Conservative colleagues to see if he is in the lobby. I had better be careful, I do not want to say who is present in the House, but I hope the hon. member for Carleton can join the debate and ask me questions in proper form.
This is the first time I have been able to rise in a debate format since the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney passed away. We had the opportunity to visit with his family today and to pay tribute to a great man, a great individual whose contributions to the country all Canadians will recognize. I would be remiss if I did not start my remarks today by recognizing Mr. Mulroney and his contributions to Canada. He served as a member of Parliament in Nova Scotia. In my riding, there is a great reverence for the work he did as a prime minister, as a Progressive Conservative. I have talked about this in the House. He and Kim Campbell were the last of that generation of true Progressive Conservative leadership in the prime minister's office. He did a great service.
I have a quick story. I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Mulroney at the Atlantic Economic Forum in Antigonish. He was so generous with my wife Kimberly. He thanked her for the work she does to allow me to be a member of Parliament. He said that Mila did the same when he was in office. There were obviously two vastly different standards, but I wanted to share that story.
Carbon pricing has consistently been something that the Conservative Party has raised every single opposition day. That is good because this is an important conversation about why the policy is in place and about how we can structure programs that make a difference to the environment but are also important for affordability. I would invite many of my opposition colleagues to reflect on what their own environmental plans are and to reflect on the fact that all of them who sit in this House ran on a platform in the last election, which included carbon pricing. I take note that is no longer the position of the Conservative Party, but I have no vision for what it stands for in relation to this really important fight that I think Canadians want parliamentarians and governments to take action on.
To provide context for Canadians, after listening to the leader of the official opposition, one would suggest that no other country or jurisdiction has any form of carbon pricing and that somehow this is some draconian measure the government has put in place that makes no sense. What would Conservatives say to the 77 other jurisdictions around the world that have a form of carbon pricing as part of their true environmental initiatives? In fact, carbon pricing is inherently a Conservative idea, the idea that we put into the market the ability for consumers and for innovation in the private sector to lead, not necessarily government. I really look forward to what the Conservative Party will present, if it does. I will be surprised if it does come, but it should come because Canadians deserve to have political parties in this place that take that issue seriously.
Today's opposition day motion talks about cutting the carbon tax altogether or pausing it, suggesting that it is a terrible scourge on the country. I do not take that view. I take the view that carbon pricing is a credible plan and a part of the discussion between affordability and environment. I think I bring some credibility to this debate because I have been critical of the government about the way in which the federal backstop worked.
As I listened to the member for Carleton ask his questions today, and the government took them because of the way the procedure works, I could not help but believe that I have done more than the member for Carleton has done in 20 years to move carbon pricing policy in this country. He talks a lot about it, but I was the one who helped lead the charge to make an adjustment for rural Canada, to have an exemption in place for home heating oil and to put in place a program that matters for affordability and for home heating.
I want to highlight, from where I sit in the chamber, that I see the Conservatives get up on heating oil, for example, and say that they want to axe the tax, which, of course, means axing the rebates that go back to Canadians. They want to axe the 17¢ a litre on home heating oil, and we know that home heating oil is the most expensive way in the country to heat homes. It has gone up by 70% over the last two years. In fact, people in the Maritimes who use heating oil to heat their homes are paying anywhere from four to five times that of those who have been able to make the transition to natural gas, including in places like Saskatchewan.
I see the member for Regina—Lewvan ready to jump in with a question, and I cannot wait for it. He needs to understand that the reason we exempted home heating oil was that we had already identified a million Canadian households that were extremely vulnerable all across this country, not just Atlantic Canada, but, of course, we were disproportionately impacted.
I am proud of the work we did to make adjustments, not just to give slogans but also to give solutions. The good people of Nova Scotia, and the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for Cumberland—Colchester and the member for West Nova, who is a good guy, would have had 17¢ a litre off their home heating bill, no doubt. Now, they are getting 17¢ a litre off their home heating bill for the next three years, and they are getting a long-term solution to save thousands of dollars a year in home heating. This is exactly an action that deals with affordability and the environment at the same time. I invite Conservatives to understand that those two things have to go together in today's context. They suggest they are mutually exclusive. I do not think that is the case. I think there is a way we can construct programs that make a difference across the way.
Again, we have driven up rural rebates. It makes a difference. That is something I fought for as a member of a rural caucus on this side of the House. We provided actual solutions and initiatives that would adjust the policy without ruining a price mechanism that matters on the environmental fight. Of course, the money does go back to households. We have highlighted that.
If Conservatives do not like the federal backstop, do they like any form of carbon pricing? I invite one of my colleagues to get up and say that today. I understand they do not like the federal backstop, but do they like cap-and-trade in Quebec? Do they like the B.C. plan? That is where this conversation should go. Do Conservatives believe in any form of carbon pricing?
I hope a members on the other side will get up and ask a question about the legislature in Nova Scotia today. I would invite the 55 members of the Nova Scotia assembly to encourage the premier of the province, Tim Houston, to work in concert with Atlantic premiers, perhaps Doug Ford, the first minister in Saskatchewan Scott Moe and in Alberta, Danielle Smith. We could have a cap-and-trade system in this country. Imagine that. It could meet the federal standard. It does not have to be the federal backstop. Let us remember why it is here; some provincial premiers decided they did not want any form of price signal that makes a difference. However, I will be inviting the premiers from Atlantic Canada and the MLAs. I am happy to engage on the topic. It matters. All this government ever wanted was a credible price to be able to fight climate change and to help reduce emissions.
I would invite the member for Regina—Lewvan to go into the offices of Federated Co-operatives in Saskatchewan and to talk to its executive team about how the carbon price is helping to drive hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in his province. The executives would tell him that is what is helping to make a difference and what is driving innovation: the carbon price. It actually helps to justify it. If not the carbon price, is the member for Regina—Lewvan just going to pour taxpayer's dollars into helping to drive that? Is that going to be the only play, or is he going to use other types of free market principles to drive the innovation that needs to happen?
When we talk about technology, not taxes, how do Conservatives intend to incentivize the technology? I have yet to hear exactly how they are going to do that. Are they going to rely on the benevolent corporate sector? Conservatives and the leader of the official opposition suggest that corporate lobbyists are useless and that the corporate sector is terrible in this country. How are they going to incentivize them to drive the change we need on climate change? I invite them to start answering those types of questions.
I take notice that Conservatives do not like the federal backstop. I take notice that this opposition day motion does not mention at all the fact that money is going back to households in Nova Scotia and indeed across the country. Let us have an informed debate.
Again, I invite the member, who will be recognized in about 30 seconds, to start his answer by saying that he either believes or does not believe in carbon pricing. If Conservatives do not believe in the federal backstop, which is very clear, that is fine, but do they believe in any form of carbon pricing? Canadians need to know that answer because, at the end of the day, there is a way to be able to do this without the federal backstop, but we need provincial premiers to play a part in the solution as well. That is what I think is important. That is what is missing from today's opposition day motion.
I look forward to the questions, and I see the members lining up.
With 10 seconds left, just quickly on Bill C-234, will the Tories bring it to a vote? My farmers need help. They are sitting on it. They put up six speakers. We need to be able to bring that to a vote.
1891 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:45:54 p.m.
- Watch
I am really glad the hon. member for Kings—Hants brought up the good work of the hon. member for West Nova. I appreciate that.
Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:46:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us imagine that we are living in a parallel world and that the carbon tax, which Quebec and British Columbia do not pay, has been cancelled. What would the impact be on Canada's international relations and on the markets? Also, who would suffer the consequences? Would it be the poorest or the richest, such as the oil companies, who would benefit the most from abolishing the carbon tax?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
