SoVote

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Apr/9/24 11:36:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I took the time to listen carefully to my colleague. I see a glimmer of common sense in him because it looks like he will be voting with the Conservatives on this motion. I want to come back to the carbon exchange. As he pointed out, it costs about $47 a tonne in Quebec. Unfortunately, the carbon tax in the other provinces is currently over $80. In that meeting, what would my colleague's reaction be if the federal Liberal government forced Quebec to increase the price of the carbon exchange so that all Canadians are on the same level, which would put Quebec at a disadvantage with all its experience in the carbon exchange?

118 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/9/24 11:37:23 a.m.
Watch

Where to begin, Mr. Speaker? It is as if he asked me what I would think if the federal government wanted to raise the price of IBM shares, if it wanted to lower the price of Nvidia shares, or if it wanted to go to the Chicago Board of Trade and dictate the price of nickel. The system does not work that way. There are a number of permits, and people exchange them. If the member for Lévis-Lotbinière is able to do that, I will have him manage my portfolio, and I will have a darn good retirement.

104 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Apr/9/24 11:38:01 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate that the member suggests there need to be alternatives for addressing climate change. I know that there is a thing called the output-based pricing system, which is used to protect major emitters from paying full carbon pricing. Depending on the industry and activity, 80% to 90% are actually exempt from carbon pricing. I wonder whether the member agrees that what we need to discuss in terms of alternatives is to remove such exemptions so the major emitters are actually paying the full price of carbon pricing.

90 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/9/24 11:38:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about the permit exchange system is that we are able to meet our targets while still acknowledging the facts. I do. It is a reality. Some big companies produce and pollute, and it is hard for them to find alternative technology in the very short term. Those companies may end up polluting elsewhere. They are given certain exemptions for a period of time, while they find these technologies. Meanwhile, we will continue to put a cap on overall emissions levels. However, these exemptions need to be removed. That is what the European Union is going to do, and I agree with that. Most permit exchange regimes will replace exemptions with border offsets that will cost Canadian industries dearly. Yes, exemptions must be phased out at a time when emissions are being reduced.

137 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/9/24 11:39:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering for some time what is behind the Conservatives' fixation on the carbon tax. I am a well-meaning person. I am known for it in my caucus. In fact, the MP for Mirabel constantly says that I am the Mother Teresa of the Bloc Québécois caucus. I have tried to understand what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to tell us. I often find him hard to follow. He sometimes makes statements we are not sure we understand. He says he wants to fix the budget. I wonder if he wants to do that with a screwdriver and a hammer. I have trouble following him sometimes. He says the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption. Is there any corruption that is worth experiencing? I often wonder. I have heard the leader of the official opposition remark on numerous occasions that electricians can capture lightning and run it through a wire to light this very room. When I put that end to end, I ask myself whether there is something missing here that would prompt the leader of the official opposition to talk to us about a carbon tax without having a solid grasp of the ins and outs. Back to what I was saying in my introduction: I am a well-intentioned person and I am going to try to unpack this for those listening to us. I have the key. I have figured out how to decipher the Conservative leader's thinking and to determine his true intentions. To figure this out, it may be best to do what one does with a teenager. When I wanted to understand my son when he was a teen, I looked at what kind of clothes he was wearing. I used clothing psychology. I could see whether he liked such or such a rock band or such or such a trend. He once wore, to my great dismay, a Québec Solidaire shirt. I could figure things out by how my son dressed. Anyone remember that “I love oil & gas” shirt? For the person wearing it, that was a cry from the heart. When someone uses a shirt to express their love for an economic sector, I mean, that is really something. That is an all-consuming passion. The Conservatives went from “I love oil & gas” to “Axe the Tax”. How come? It is because if someone says today that they adore oil and gas at a time of climate change, they may look, well, crazy. That is just my opinion, though, and I am not judging anyone. If, on the other hand, someone says it is not oil and gas that they love, but that they want to defend low-income earners by eliminating a tax, well, that may end up resonating with certain people who do not take the time to unpack what is being said. What I am hoping to do here in the House is deconstruct the Conservatives' rhetoric. I get the impression that the Leader of the Opposition is not actually defending the purchasing power of families and low-income earners, but rather an ideology that denies climate change and supports the oil and gas sector without reservation. A look at the facts will be the real test. So let us look at the facts. The direct and indirect impact of the carbon tax on inflation is minimal, if not virtually nil. I have some numbers from the Bank of Canada. Say there is a $15 increase. The Bank of Canada is telling us that the direct impact on inflation will be 0.15%. This 0.15%, when transposed to $1,000, means that for every $1,000 a family spends, $1.50 is spent on the carbon tax. That $1.50 applies only to provinces that have a carbon tax. It does not apply to Quebec. I am not the one saying that, it is the Bank of Canada. Saying that made the Conservatives sound a bit silly. Why would anyone have a nervous breakdown or start printing T-shirts over $1.50 on every $1,000? That is a bit ridiculous. There is no justification for what the leader of the official opposition was saying. According to him, people are lining up in front of food banks to ask for medical assistance in dying because the carbon tax increased by $1.50 on every $1,000. It seems a little crazy. The Conservatives wanted to talk about indirect impacts. They were clever. The Bank of Canada was unwilling to calculate indirect impacts because it said that they are insignificant, that they amount to almost nothing. Trevor Tombe, an economics professor, did the math. It is funny. Let us take a closer look at that. He calculated it for Alberta and Ontario, and he came up with some rather surprising figures. That means the indirect impact of the carbon tax would cost about 0.18% in Alberta and 0.20% in Ontario. If we follow that logic, the Conservatives have been shouting for 18 months about 30¢ to 50¢ per $1,000. Is it worth focusing all opposition days on 30¢ to 50¢ per $1,000? Is that why low-income earners are having a hard time finding housing, clothing and food? Is that causing out-of-control inflation? I do not know, but unless they can prove that the opposite is true, I will have a hard time believing the Conservatives. We must always remember that the carbon tax does not apply directly to Quebec. Professor Tombe found the impact so insignificant that he did not want to calculate it for Quebec. He thought 30¢ to 50¢ was too insignificant. Let us extrapolate by saying that it affects Quebec by about 0.02% or 0.03%. That would mean that, for every $1,000, the impact of the carbon tax that the Conservatives keep harping on about would cost a family an extra 25¢. This calculation was made by an economics professor who has the support of many of his colleagues. It is not like some members of Parliament who were brandishing a bill with the words “carbon tax” on it and a calculation scribbled on the back by a gas producer. That inspired me to do something. It occurred to me that it would be very interesting to calculate the economic support given to the oil and gas sector. In the last budget alone, over the next 10 years, nearly $83 billion will be redirected to the oil and gas sector in tax credits. That is huge. It is appalling. That is not counting the pipeline, which we paid $34 billion for. I would like to do the math and tell low-income earners how much tax money they have given to the oil and gas sector. I think that, for every $1,000, we will be a long way from 25¢. It will be much higher. I said at the outset that I am always well-intentioned. That is true. I am a bit like the Mother Teresa of the Bloc Québécois. I wanted to deconstruct what the Conservatives are saying. Now I want to help them. If they want to work with the premiers, good for them. That is a good idea. We in the Bloc Québécois would be prepared to get on board. That is why I would be prepared to move an amendment to this motion to have other provinces join the carbon exchange. We can get rid of the carbon tax, and the best way to get rid of it is to propose carbon pricing ourselves. Why not join Quebec? Our arms are open. Like Mother Teresa, we are here to welcome provinces that want to free themselves from the carbon tax while putting a price on the carbon exchange. I therefore move the following amendment: that the motion be amended by: (a) replacing the words “tax emergency” with the word “pricing”; (b) replacing the words “that this meeting address” with the word “and,”; and (c) deleting paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I cannot be more well-intentioned than that.

1405 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/9/24 11:48:56 a.m.
Watch

I must inform the hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion can only be proposed with the consent of the mover. In the event that he is not present, the House leader, deputy House leader, whip or deputy whip of the mover's party may give or refuse consent in the mover's place. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I am asking the acting whip if he consents to the amendment being moved.

79 words

Mover
Whip

Mr. Len Webber

Apr/9/24 11:49:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we reject the amendment.

8 words

Reject

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/9/24 11:49:37 a.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments, the hon. deputy House leader.

27 words

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

Apr/9/24 11:49:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing I reflected on as I was listening to the member and his colleague who spoke before him was that the one constituency where the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to gain a lot of traction in terms of his position on a price on pollution is Quebec. I think that is because Quebec has had a price on pollution for many years, understands the importance of it and understands how the mechanics of it work. However, what I cannot understand is how Conservatives, in particular, Conservatives from Quebec, keep talking about this price on pollution and trying to demonize the policy. They must know that Quebeckers believe in pricing pollution, whether it be through a carbon tax or through cap and trade. What does the member think about this? Can he wrap his head around why Quebec Conservative MPs keep going on about this, even though they know that Quebeckers, by and large, do not support what they are saying?

167 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Apr/9/24 11:51:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think what is funniest in the question raised by my colleague is the reaction by the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who brandished a sheet of paper to criticize the Quebec carbon exchange when she herself was in government when this exchange was implemented. Basically, one could say that she acts one way in Quebec City, and another way in Ottawa. That is precisely why the Conservative Party is not doing better in Quebec, because they often talk out of both sides of their mouth. I would cite the example Quebec's state secularism act. We never heard the leader of the official opposition say he would respect Quebec's choice. That is not good for him. The same applies to Bill 96, which places French above all other languages in Quebec. We heard the leader of the official opposition say he would challenge that. I have never heard the leader of the official opposition say he agreed with special status for Quebec. Maybe that explains why the Conservative Party is so slow to catch on in Quebec.

186 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Apr/9/24 11:52:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the principal reasons we oppose this is that the cost of this has a ripple-down impact. For the Town of Shaunavon back home, for example, with the carbon tax increase, it is going to cost the town $78,000. In order for the municipality to cover that off, it would have to raise taxes on ratepayers by at least 8% or 9%. There it is, another example of how the carbon tax continues to pile onto ratepayers more than just at the pumps, which is where the Bloc seems to think it only applies. I want to know what the member thinks about that.

109 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Apr/9/24 11:53:00 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, economists tell us these indirect costs are minimal. Nevertheless, on the subject of indirect costs, we could talk about Alberta's oil royalties. These costs far outstrip those associated with the carbon tax. Why do I never hear my colleagues talk to us about that? We could also talk about the indecent amount of public money funnelled to oil companies, money that could help us provide support for our cities and programming that would be far more beneficial for the population than having us simply give money to an economic sector that is making record profits. We could talk about the major oil companies' refining margins going up—these gluttonous companies that are making record profits. We could talk about all that, but unfortunately the Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil industry prevents them from thinking in these terms.

143 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/9/24 11:54:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Jonquière. I think that the Conservative motion gives us a good opportunity to explain to Canadians what is really happening with the climate crisis. The reality is that, when a provincial Conservative premier testified in committee, he gave the government good arguments in favour of the carbon tax. In fact, the testimony the Conservative premiers gave as to why they are against carbon pricing did not make any sense. Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite those who are opposed to policies that work to come and explain why they are in favour of doing nothing.

110 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Apr/9/24 11:55:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the reasons why the Conservatives do not want to take action on climate change are very simple. The only reason is the oil industry. Unfortunately, what will that accomplish in the long term? Since everyone is putting a price on carbon, Quebec's competitiveness in its trade with Europe and the United States will be affected because the Conservatives and the Liberals have decided that the economic sector they are going to focus on is the Canadian oil and gas industry. The only solution for us is independence.

90 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Apr/9/24 11:55:49 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks, the federal government has been parading all over Canada, announcing programs of all kinds and budgetary envelopes in advance, disclosing bits and pieces of the budgetary measures that will be part of the budget to be tabled on April 16. On a number of occasions, nearly four weeks before the tabling of the budget, the media reported figures shared by cabinet members and the Prime Minister, meaning that some of the financial initiatives that will be included in the finance minister's budget were known in advance. It is disconcerting that the government would violate the principle of secrecy as it relates to fiscal matters, a principle that should be upheld by any responsible and trustworthy government. Despite this parliamentary tradition and what, in our opinion, the principles of good governance call for, the federal government is prematurely disclosing budget items that are part of a budget plan, a projection for the coming years. These announcements, taken out of context, are preventing the opposition from doing its job properly. Members are learning in dribs and drabs, in isolation, what the next Liberal budget will consist of. Starting on March 25, ministers began announcing budgetary measures for housing, for the national child care network, for the national pharmacare program regarding oral contraceptives and certain diabetes medications, for the new national school meals program, for the development of artificial intelligence, for strengthening national defence and for mental health. In short, over the two-week parliamentary recess, a whole bunch of pre-budget announcements were made, a pre-election striptease of sorts, according to an April 3 article in La Presse. According to Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, budget secrecy is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, and straying from this principle can have a negative impact on business or on the stock market, potentially causing irrevocable harm to some individuals or institutions and unduly benefiting others. Members will recall that, before the content of the budget that the Minister of Finance intends to table is made public, finance officials usually hold an in camera information session for members and journalists, to preserve the necessary secrecy and to allow members to read the government's budget measures so that they can then debate them with full knowledge of the facts. The principle of secrecy in relation to fiscal matters is a fundamental principle commonly recognized in a parliamentary democracy and one that should undoubtedly be a matter of consensus in the government and among cabinet members. It is disconcerting that the government itself prematurely disclosed significant budget items without assessing the potential impact of that decision. There was actually a time in 1989 when, to protect this parliamentary principle, then Prime Minister Mulroney had a journalist criminally charged with stealing confidential information and disclosing it before the budget was tabled. The finance minister at the time, Michael Wilson, decided to present his budget early in order to safeguard the principle of budget secrecy. What is most worrying is that the Liberal government went ahead with this, ignoring the tradition of a parliamentary practice designed to prevent insider trading and allow parliamentarians to read the budget ahead of time, the better to comment on it. By announcing its budget to the media in bits and pieces, the federal government is being irresponsible toward all members and particularly toward the opposition parties, which are responsible for keeping an eye on the government's policies. To disclose certain measures that the government believes will be popular, without allowing parliamentarians and Canadians an opportunity to see the government's entire budget policy, is a ploy that significantly affects the opposition parties' ability to take an informed position and hold the government to account with full knowledge of the facts. Consequently, we believe that the members of the opposition parties have been obstructed in fulfilling their parliamentary duties, given that they were unable to take an informed position based on all the necessary budget information or to properly inform voters about the budget measures that were announced and their impact or repercussions. These budget announcements could give financial advantages to certain experts in the field, which could be considered insider trading. That is a fundamental issue for the Speaker's office to address. In addition, it is important to ensure that the premature disclosure of budget measures does not violate the privilege of members of Parliament, who have been impeded in the performance of their duties, leaving them unable to represent and defend the interests of their constituents with full knowledge of the facts. It will also be important to check whether the premature disclosure had the effect of misleading the public about the budget and, by the same token, members of Parliament. According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 116, misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House. That is why, if the Chair finds that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

853 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/9/24 12:01:57 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. We will take a close look. The hon. whip for the New Democratic Party.

23 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Apr/9/24 12:02:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the New Democratic Party may come back with some comments on this in the future.

23 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/9/24 12:02:25 p.m.
Watch

I think there will be enough time for everyone to speak. The hon. deputy House leader.

16 words

Deputy
Speak

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

Apr/9/24 12:02:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my comment is similar to the one made by my NDP colleague; if you would allow us the opportunity to do the same, it would be appreciated.

29 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/9/24 12:02:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague from the Bloc Québécois for this motion and this explanation. The Green Party will also want to submit its point of view at a later time.

36 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 296