44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 9, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/9/24 10:52:37 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons, although it is sad that we are debating the same tired argument that the Conservatives have been bringing forward for the last two years. It is clear that the Conservative war on facts, evidence and science continues, even since the Harper era. Now it is math they disagree with.
The failed former leader of the Conservative Party from Regina—Qu'Appelle and the petro-puppet from Carleton are on this cover-up campaign with the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, who raised the price of gas on April 1 by more than the price on pollution. By the way, that price increase did not include any type of rebate, so it is clear why the Conservatives are here and who they are here for. It is not for Canadians or to stand up for affordability; it is to play a role in the cover-up campaign for the Premier of Alberta and to defend the greedy corporate interests of big oil and gas giants, as they always have.
Nothing changes with the Conservative Party, but things are changing with our climate. In fact, March 2024 was the hottest March ever on record. Guess what, Mr. Speaker: February had the highest temperature and was the hottest February ever on record. January was the same. Actually, that has been the case for the last 10 consecutive months. Every single month has been a record-breaking month for temperature. The hottest year on record was 2023. Now, in 2024, it is only April and there are already wildfires burning. Last year, 5.7 million acres of Canadian forests burned down because of out-of-control wildfires, and the Conservative leader blamed it on arson, which we know is not the case. Climate change has dried our forests out and increased the severity of wildfires.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, even still, the Conservative caucus of climate change deniers is heckling over there. I know Conservatives do not believe in climate change, but Canadians do; they demand that we stand up, lower our emissions and take a leading role on fighting climate change around the world.
If one does not believe in climate change, then one must believe in the amount of money these wildfires are costing Canadians. There was over $1.5 billion in economic losses last year just from wildfires and an incremental $700 million of insured losses. That does not include drought, floods, hurricanes, extreme weather or hyperfocused precipitation, as we have seen across this country.
Climate change is an existential threat to our economy, our livelihoods and our very lives, and the Conservatives want to ignore it. Who do they want to rely on for insight, for expertise and research? Our universities provide us with that insight. Last week, when 200 leading economists from across this country wrote an open letter in support of carbon pricing, a spokesperson for the Conservative leader, the petro-puppet from Carleton, called them “so-called ‘experts’”. I am sorry, but these are people who earned their degrees. They went to university, did the research and got a Ph.D. They are experts, not so-called experts. They are leading researchers in the field. This is coming from a guy who has never earned an honest red cent in his life. He has never contributed a dollar to our economy. This is the only job he has ever had, here in the House of Commons. It is pathetic coming from somebody with no expertise.
I would like to spend the rest of my time today reading into the record the open letter from the economists on the Canadian carbon pricing. This is not political rhetoric, a bumper sticker or a slogan that looks good on a hoodie. We are getting facts and evidence, irrefutable mathematics, from our experts.
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time today with the member for Winnipeg North.
671 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 10:57:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that under advisement.
I will continue now to read the open letter from economists on Canadian carbon pricing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, it would be great if I did not have to raise my voice and yell, but the Conservative members want to heckle, so I will continue to speak at a volume that will allow them to hear it. This open letter from economists on Canadian carbon pricing was signed by over 200 leading experts. These are people who are doing research on a regular basis to determine what facts and evidence should be included in the political discourse.
The letter starts:
As economists from across Canada, we are concerned about the significant threats from climate change. We encourage governments to use economically sensible policies to reduce emissions at a low cost, address Canadians’ affordability concerns, maintain business competitiveness, and support Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Canada’s carbon-pricing policies do all those things.
The member for Carleton, the Conservative leader, might call them so-called experts, or he might even call them Liberals. That is not true, and that is not a fact. These are people who work in our universities, teach our students and conduct world-class research, and their facts and evidence ought to be read into the record. I am proud to do that today.
These economists refute five claims. The first Conservative claim is, “Carbon pricing won't reduce GHG emissions.” The open letter states: “What the evidence shows: Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches.” This was reiterated by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe just the other day, which is that they looked at other things, but they were all more expensive, so they are relying on the federal backstop program. Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches.
The open letter continues:
Since federal carbon pricing took effect in 2019, Canada’s GHG emissions have fallen by almost 8 percent...the Canadian Climate Institute shows that federal and provincial carbon pricing, for industries and consumers, is expected to account for almost half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030.
That is basic economics and common sense.
The letter further states, “Carbon pricing is the lowest cost approach because it gives each person and business [in our communities] the flexibility to choose the best way to reduce their carbon footprint. Other methods, such as direct regulations, tend to be more intrusive and inflexible, and cost more.”
One of the reasons that Conservatives around the world in other countries rely on carbon pricing is that it is a market-based instrument considered widely as a Conservative approach to lowering emissions.
Conservative claim number two is, “Carbon pricing drives up the cost of living and is a major cause of inflation.” This is totally false. The letter states, “What the evidence shows: Canadian carbon pricing has a negligible impact on overall inflation.”
The Conservatives can repeat their claims and their slogans all they want. That is not science. It is not evidence, It is not math. It is false. The letter continues, “The sharp increase in inflation between 2021 and 2023 was caused by several factors, mainly related to the COVID-19 pandemic...and the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on commodity prices.”
Just a few minutes ago, the petro-puppet from Carleton was standing in the House suggesting that the war in Ukraine did not cause any inflation in Canada. This is absolutely false. These forces are global, which is why the most advanced countries, whether they have a carbon price or not, experienced very similar inflation. Carbon pricing has caused less than one-twentieth of Canada's inflation in the past two years.
As well, 90% of the revenues generated are rebated back to households, which means that families receive more money in rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, particularly those with low and modest incomes.
The letter states, “Climate change, on the other hands, poses a real threat to Canadians' economic well-being...climate change will cost our economy at least $35 billion by 2030, and much more in future decades.” Again, this reiterates that this is an existential threat for Canadians and for our species on planet earth.
Conservative claim number three is, “It makes little sense to have both a carbon price and rebates.” The letter states, “The price-and-rebate approach provides an incentive to reduce carbon emissions...while maintaining most households’ overall purchasing power (due to the rebate).” Giving most back to families, through the Canada carbon rebate, carbon pricing revenues and rebates do not undermine the goal of the price. As well, there is still the incentive to reduce emissions. This is another Conservative claim debunked by expert economists.
Conservative claim number four is “Carbon pricing harms Canadian business competitiveness.” The letter states:
What the evidence shows: Canada’s carbon-pricing scheme is designed to help businesses reduce emissions at low cost, while competing in the emerging low-carbon global economy.
For large emitting sectors in most provinces—like oil, steel and cement—there is an “output-based” carbon pricing system. In effect, it means most large industries pay the carbon price only on the last 10-20 percent of their emissions. The lower-emitting firms pay less while higher-emitting firms pay more—creating a strong incentive for all firms to reduce emissions.
It is also important to highlight here that the vast majority of the oil and gas used in the agriculture sector, or 97% of it, is exempt from carbon pricing.
Conservative claim number five is, “Carbon pricing isn't necessary.” The letter states, “Here the critics are actually right. Canada could abandon carbon pricing and still hit our climate targets by using other types of regulations and subsidies—but it would be much more costly to do so” for businesses, our economy and for consumers.
The letter continues, “Unfortunately, the most vocal opponents of carbon pricing are not offering any alternative policies to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals.”
There are more than 200 Canadian economists who wrote a letter to the Conservative Party asking it to adjust some of its demands because they are not based on fact or evidence. If there is even one Canadian economist who disagrees with these 200 economists, I would ask Conservative members to bring their facts and evidence to the House and read them into the record because Canadians demand policies that are based on facts, evidence, science and research, not bumper stickers, slogans and overly repeated political rhetoric.
1162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:04:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member just brought up a tweet that I put out a couple of years ago.
An hon member: Yes or no?
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, he is yelling, “Yes or no?” right now at the top of his lungs.
I believe that building highways is not a way to fight climate change. It is true. We should find ways to rely more on active transportation, public transit and trains. In my community, we require both-direction, all-day GO train service, so a lot of people use their cars when they do not have to.
It is true that we need highways. It is true that we need roads, and we need more of them in Canada with our growing population, but that does not mean that highways should be used as a wedge or recommendation to fight climate change. Conservatives want to say when we build more highways, we get less gridlock and less carbon emissions, and that is proven to be false.
Yes, I stand by my statement.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:06:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I always proud to serve with the member for Courtenay—Alberni in the House. We have had many meetings together on harm reduction, on the toxic drug overdose crisis in Canada and on ways to support people who are suffering from addictions.
This morning, we announced that our government will be investing a further $500 million into youth mental health, which will include addictions supports. This is another occasion where we are faced with a war on evidence. The Conservative Party wants to suggest that safe supply and providing people with the tools necessary to fight their addictions and live another day is causing the overdose crisis and is causing the toxic drug supply, which are false.
I want to commend the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his leadership on this and many other issues. I am always proud to work with him. I would be grateful for an opportunity to sit down to discuss how we can take further action on ending the opioid crisis in Canada.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:08:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that member is one of the most vociferous climate change deniers in the House of Commons. He stands up to deny Canadians', humans', impact on climate change.
I read into the record the recommendations and the policy guidelines of people who do this work for a living. They are not their opinions. These are facts that have been uncovered by research and mathematics.
The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is approximately 350 parts per million. When it goes a lot higher than that, we have problems. Just like inside a greenhouse, plants consume carbon dioxide. That is something that a lot of Conservatives and climate change deniers will say is plant food. No, carbon dioxide is not plant food. It is part of the photosynthetic process.
The rhetoric that the oceans are responsible for more climate change than humans are is absolutely astonishing. It is that type of climate change denial, that type of fact-free rhetoric, that Canadians do not need in this debate.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:33:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is nice to be back in adjournment debate with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
The member spoke about pressure on senators. I think it is relevant to the debate to talk about what pressure on senators actually made the news, with respect to the failed former Conservative leader from Regina—Qu'Appelle's bullying tactics towards some non-Conservative senators, which actually resulted in their feeling extremely unsafe. People were showing up at their private residence. That kind of bully politics is unbecoming of any member. It should not be part of how we come to decisions, how we debate in the House and how we put forward good ideas.
I would say that the only senators who are partisan in the other place are Conservative senators. The Liberals do not have senators at our caucus meetings. There are independent senators. There are senators who have their own views. That is the way it should work. For the member to suggest that pressure was put on any senators, other than the pressure that was very clearly documented in the media, from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and other Conservatives, was totally unbecoming of the offices they hold. They should have apologized for that.
On the topic of farmers and agriculture, farmers are the backbone of our country. Their work is essential. It is difficult, especially with climate change heavily impacting their livelihood. The number one risk and the number one impact that farmers are experiencing is our changing climate and severe weather. Drought, floods, very focused precipitation and wildfires are having a devastating impact on the agriculture sector, with people having to evacuate their homes and communities in the summer, during wildfire season. Last year, I think 1.5 million acres of our forests burned; actually it was much more than that, but I do not remember the total number off the top of my head. Farmers face climate change's harsh realities every single day, whether it is through drought, wildfires, floods or invasive species. They are all becoming more prevalent.
Our government supports agriculture, farmers and their families, and the practice of farming. We subsidize innovations. We ensure that farmers are made whole. It goes without saying that they are the breadbasket of Canada. It is absolutely essential that we make sure farmers can continue their important work. I meet with my local farmers in Milton on a frequent basis, and I am very grateful for all of the work they do.
That is why 97% of on-farm fuels are exempt from carbon pricing altogether. It is also worth mentioning that farmers in Quebec and British Columbia are not subject to the federal backstop of carbon pricing, because those provinces have a plan to fight climate change and lower their emissions. It is up to the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario, if they do not want to continue to have Canada carbon rebates go to their constituents, or if they do not want to have the federal price on pollution, to come up with their own plan.
In the last federal election, the last time my colleague from Alberta went to the doors, he ran on a commitment to price carbon. With Erin O'Toole as their leader, the Conservatives ran on a promise to have a carbon pricing scheme. It was called “The more you burn, the more you earn”, because every dollar would get deposited in some kind of green bank account. However, they did not win the last election. In a hypothetical alternate universe, if the Conservatives had won the last election, farmers would be paying the price on pollution.
It is clear to me why they made such a big deal about the April 1 hike, and that is because in Alberta, Danielle Smith increased the price of gas by 4¢ on April 1. That was not a rebatable increase; it was just an increase in provincial tax, and it had an impact on the cost of living in Alberta. However, we do not hear about that from the Conservative Alberta MPs.
693 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians do not need to hear it from me. They can hear it directly from the senators in question. Three independent senators said they were bullied by the Conservative leader in the Senate, in the red chamber, after a member from their group attempted to put off debate on a controversial bill. Police and the Senate had also investigated the matter, and the Conservative leader in the Senate did concede that he got a little angry over the matter.
The Conservatives can stand over there and justify that behaviour if they would like, but there are senators who did not go home that weekend. They stayed in a hotel because they feared for their safety due to the bullying of the Conservative Senate leader. That is unbecoming of the office they hold. Certainly, there is lots of time for debate, but instructing people to harass senators, or any other elected or non-elected official, is wrong.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:44:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me first correct my colleague. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the carbon price is not a tax. It is a regulatory charge that is essential to reducing the pollution that is causing climate change and all the money is returned to Canadians. In fact, eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the Canada carbon rebate than they pay toward the fuel charge, with lower- and middle-income households receiving the most. They benefit the most.
Claims that the carbon price is increasing the cost of living are false. It has been widely refuted by hundreds of economists across this country. The math has been done by those who conduct the research on a regular and frequent basis and the fuel charge is a slow and steady increase, which does not affect inflation to a large degree and also does not increase the cost of living.
I have been reflecting on why the Conservatives have taken this approach on April 1. I started considering who they are working with. The fact is that, on April 1, Danielle Smith increased the price of fuel in Alberta by four cents. That was more than the increase. They talk about a 23% increase. That 23% increase on just the very small carbon price on gasoline added up to three cents. There is a three-cent increase in the price of a litre of gasoline, but Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, increased it by four cents. The difference between those two increases is that the four-cent increase did not come with a rebate, whereas the price on pollution with the Canada carbon rebate is sent back to Canadians. It is an incentive. It is a proven strategy and it works. It is lowering our emissions in Canada.
However, my colleague is not from Alberta, so who might he then be working for? There are a couple of options, I suppose. One is that big oil and gas posted record profits last year. The vast majority of the price of fuel goes to profits for big oil and gas executives, which is worth considering, but there have also been calls in Saskatchewan, the home province of my colleague across the way, to reduce its provincial tax, which is in excess of 15¢ per litre. The Saskatchewan government has refused to, despite the fact that other provinces have recognized that there is an affordability crisis and their governments ought to do what they can to lower the cost of fuel.
One might say that the federal government just increased the cost of fuel with the price on pollution going up on April 1. That is true, but the rebate went up as well. It is a fully rebated increase on the price of fuel, but the provincial excise tax in Saskatchewan is the highest in the country. It does not come with a rebate and Saskatchewan has refused to cut it. It is also possible that Conservative members are kind of creating this Conservative cover-up campaign to make it look like gas is expensive just because of the price on pollution, whereas there are multiple factors. There is corporate greed from big oil and gas. There are provincial excise taxes that are not rebated and a lot of other global factors, including climate change, which has an impact on the price of fuel.
Climate change is the number one cause of the increase in the cost of living with respect to groceries. It is another well-documented thing by the 200-plus economists from right across the country who the member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservatives, called “so-called experts”. That is unfair. Those experts are experts. They work at Canadian universities and conduct that research, and that is the evidence, the facts and the science, the pure mathematics, that the government relies on when making decisions.
Carbon pricing is a proven strategy to lower emissions. It is working. Since 2018, our emissions are down 8%.
I would remind Canadian voters that Conservatives ran on a plan to price pollution in the 2021 election under the auspices of Erin O'Toole, the former Conservative leader. The member across the way ran on a promise to price pollution. He went door to door with that campaign commitment and platform. Since then, the Conservatives have decided that carbon pollution and climate change is not an issue. However, it is an issue and it requires all of us to work on it.
757 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 7:49:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said previously, carbon pollution pricing systems across Canada are designed to limit impacts on farmers, on the cost of living, on the cost of food, and they have been doing that. However, when premiers either refuse to cut their very high provincial excise tax, which is still 15% in the province of Saskatchewan, or actually increase it, as the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, did, they are creating inflation within their provinces. Perhaps the inflation in Saskatchewan, as the member opposite just said, has not gone up by as much. The Premier of Saskatchewan has not increased the price of gas; it was already more expensive than in other provinces.
This is a journey that we take together. Carbon pollution and climate change are inescapable realities, and we need to help Canadians lower their emissions as well as navigate this affordability challenge. Climate change is upon us. The wildfire season has already started, and it is only April. Last year, 2023, was the hottest year on record.
I am hoping the Conservatives will come up with some kind of plan to lower our emissions, to fight climate change and to make sure that our grandkids have a planet to live on.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
