SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 1:04:48 p.m.
Watch

These are not points of order. They are points of debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has a point of order.

24 words

Apr/9/24 1:04:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to support my colleague. It is really unfair for the NDP members to talk about science when there are Conservatives in the room. I think it puts us all at a great disadvantage.

38 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 1:05:02 p.m.
Watch

This is the time to be debating the subject matter that is before the House, the opposition motion. I would ask members to please wait until the appropriate time. I would also ask members to not be speaking and having conversations while the hon. member is speaking. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

54 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Apr/9/24 1:05:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, respect and decorum in the House should be the first thing that all members come to an agreement on and behave accordingly. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, a good friend and a dear colleague. Before beginning the discussion on the heart of the debate, let us just put a simple fact out there. Today, we found out that the world has experienced its hottest March on record, marking the 10th straight month of breaking global temperatures, according to the EU Copernicus Climate Change Service. The month of March 2024 is the hottest March on record due to climate change, and we have an opposition party with half or three-quarters of its members do not even realize or believe that climate change is real and that we need to act. They have absolutely no plan. I understand I have a heckler—

163 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 1:06:48 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has point of order.

12 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Apr/9/24 1:06:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has made an accusation that 50% of the Conservatives do not believe in climate change. I think he needs to prove it. Maybe it is 100%.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 1:06:59 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. I do want to ask other members who have been making comments while the hon. member is speaking to please refrain from doing so until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

41 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Apr/9/24 1:07:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the world has experienced its hottest March on record, marking the 10th straight month of global temperature records being broken, according to the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service. That is a fact. To my residents in Vaughan—Woodbridge, next week, on April 15, the Canada carbon rebate lands in their back accounts, lands in their mail and returns fuel charge proceeds to Canadians. Dollar for dollar, what we collected is remitted to the provinces, to those individuals. The average family of four in Ontario receives $1,120. We know that eight out of 10 families, where the backstop has been put in place due to lack of action on the provincial front, are better off. Specifically, middle- and lower-income families are much better off. We owe it to our future generations, to my kids, to all the parents sitting in the House and to all the Canadians who have kids. We need to leave a strong economy and a healthy, clean environment. We have a plan. The opposition does not have a plan. They are full of hot air. We saw it this morning. I say that respectfully; they are full of hot air. When it comes to fighting climate change, if we look around the world and look at the policies being adopted, whether it is in Australia, China or Europe, they are all moving to decarbonization. We know the world is going that way. We either get on the bus or stay off the bus and be left behind. I thank my colleagues for giving me their attention today as we discuss an issue that is vital for the future of our country and our planet. Forest fires and other natural disasters are being exacerbated by climate change. Over the past few years, we have seen an increase in the number and intensity of these phenomena, with disastrous repercussions on our ecosystems, our communities and our economy. The figures are alarming. In 2023, we set a new record, and not in a good way. Last year, 8.8 million hectares burned, breaking the 1989 record of 7.6 million hectares. Our projections show that the situation is going to get worse if we do not take meaningful action immediately. Global warming is also causing prolonged droughts and heatwaves, creating favourable conditions for fires to spread. In addition, the number of forest fires is increasing as melting glaciers and shrinking snow cover free up land that was previously covered in ice. These events are having a direct impact on our infrastructure, our agricultural systems, our water resources and the health of our communities. The total cost of climate-related natural disasters in Canada is already significant, and it is steadily climbing. There were nearly $3.1 billion in claims related to natural disasters in 2023. In addition, more than 1.5 million high-risk households are unable to get affordable flood insurance. Climate change cannot be denied, and its effects are indisputably being felt across the country. This is an urgent problem. When I speak with my constituents, I tell them that we have to deal with climate change and we have to deal with the climate crisis. We know that we have a plan in place. The other party does not. It does not and it does not want to. It does not want to deal with problems. It does not want to deal with the crisis. It has these clichéd slogans that do not work and that spread misinformation. We know that we need to deal with this issue. We know that the economy is going that way. The global economy is going that way. We know that there is only one planet. We also know that there is a transition. Yes, I absolutely support all of the energy workers out there working in Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador. We need that energy, absolutely. At the same time, we need a plan in place that takes us to a net-zero world, whether that is through electric vehicles or electrifying our energy system here in Canada. We see, all over the world, that this is happening. We need to do it smartly. When the other side pontificates about “axe the tax”, that is nonsense. Conservatives do not have a plan. They just want to rage farm. They want to scare people. They want to provide misinformation. As an economist, I know that the price on carbon is not causing inflation. It is a statistical fact, yet they still want to propagate that. Unfortunately, some people continue to deny the reality of climate change and minimize its impact on wildfires. However, the science could not be clearer: Global warming is an indisputable reality. We must act decisively to mitigate its impact and protect our communities. That is why the Government of Canada has put in place a suite of measures to fight climate change and mitigate the risk of wildfires. A big part of that is putting a price on carbon. A price on carbon is central to reducing emissions, whether it is on the industrial side or on the consumer side. Yes, we need folks to have alternatives, electric vehicles and thermal pumps or heat pumps. We need to make sure that our electricity system is moving toward being fully renewable and that our small businesses have the opportunity to lower their energy bills through smart programs. We need all that stuff in place, but we need a plan in place. That is what is called responsible leadership. That is what a government is elected to do, to provide responsible leadership. It is not clichés. It is not misleading folks that climate change is not real, for God's sake, and not even believing in climate change and saying that there is no issue out there, when we just had the month of March as the hottest month on record for that month. We need to be smart. We need to go where the puck is going or, as my daughters would say, where the soccer ball is. We need to make sure that we put those goals in the other opponent's net, i.e., have a competitive economy. That is what we need to do while we support those hard-working energy workers who are out there doing what they need to do, and I support them. At the same time, we need to foster economic growth and job creation in clean technology sectors like renewable energy and energy efficiency. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, eight out of 10 families will get more money back through the Canada carbon rebate than they pay for carbon pricing. Eight out of 10 Canadian families are made better off under the pricing pollution system. Folks may not want to believe that. That is fine, but it is the truth. In Ontario, on April 15, families in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across this beautiful province that I live in, and Canada is beautiful of course but Ontario more so, will receive their carbon rebates. I want to make sure that they know that.

1207 words

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

Apr/9/24 1:16:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us just put some facts on the record here. Catherine McKenna, when she was the climate minister, deleted 100 years of climate data in this country. We can leave it up to debate as to why she did that. Let us go to an organization that has actually been collecting data for a very long period of time. Let us use their data and see what it says. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States has some weather data that says that this past March was only the 17th warmest in the last 130 years. In fact, March was 2°F colder than it was in 1905. There is data out there that tells everybody that what he said was, in fact, a mistruth. I am just wondering what the member would have to say about that and the fact that there is actual real data out there. He did not use any data in his arguments, but there are organizations that actually have it.

172 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Apr/9/24 1:17:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I work with my hon. colleague on the natural resources committee. I have much respect for him. I know he does a great job representing his constituents, much like we all do. There is obviously a difference of opinion here in terms of looking at the data. As I cited in my speech, the Copernicus Science Centre in Europe just stated that we had the hottest March in recorded temperature history. Climate change is real. It is serious. It is a risk. We owe it to our kids to leave a healthier and cleaner environment and a strong economy. That is exactly what we are doing.

108 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/9/24 1:18:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we had energy workers come talk to Parliament about being part of a new energy economy and the need to have their voices at the table, the Conservatives shut them down. They shut down the IBEW. They shut down the construction workers. They shut down the building trades. They shut down the Canadian Labour Congress and the Alberta Federation of Labour. They would not let them speak. When it came to coal workers who had been hurt in the transition, it was New Democrats who brought in the coal workers, because the Conservatives were not interested in letting working people speak. Given the evidence that we heard from energy workers in Alberta, who understood that there is a new future out there, why did the Conservatives shut them down time and time again and not let workers from the energy community speak?

145 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Apr/9/24 1:19:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we will be supporting hard-working, middle-class Canadians, those union members, whether they are working to build our cities or working in the oil and natural gas sector across this country, not only today but tomorrow and the day after, to make sure they have the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow, including for many years to come in the energy sector. We know we are going to need them and we are going to support them. They are always welcome to come to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, one of the committees I sit on, because we need to hear their voices. They build this country. God bless them. They are always welcome.

120 words

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 1:20:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing clarity to the House in regard to the various positions of different parties. Not too long ago, the Conservatives actually denied at a convention that climate change was taking place. In the last election, they flip-flopped and had it as part of their pillar within their campaign platform. Can the member reflect on the Conservatives' various positions and maybe shed some light on where the Conservatives are today when it comes to climate change?

85 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Apr/9/24 1:20:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, almost every single Conservative on the other side of the House ran on a platform in the last election to put a price on carbon. Shame on them for flip-flopping on such an important issue for Canadians and for the world, which is to make sure we leave a strong economy and a healthy and clean environment for our kids. Shame.

64 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 1:21:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are times that I think we should do away with the video and the actual televised elements of not only the House of Commons but of committees as well, because it has become performative in nature. However, after listening to the comments from the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake, I am quite glad that this is televised so that Canadians can see the way in which members of Parliament engage in what is a really important topic around how we put forward credible plans to fight climate change, to reduce emissions and to follow the science that has been very clear around the world. I have heard comments, particularly from the opposition benches today, that start to call into question whether they believe there is an imperative to fight climate change and reduce emissions. I look forward to the opportunity for them to ask me questions on that piece. This is a really important national conversation about the mechanisms we are going to use to fight climate change, but let us get back to basics about why we are doing this. As I mentioned, the science is very clear that there is a global imperative to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming that is coming as a result. That goal, which is internationally recognized by countries around the world, is to try to keep global warming to 1.5°C or less, but certainly below 2°C. This is recognized as being an existential threat to the way in which we have been able to enjoy this planet, our communities and our country up until this point. Some of the comments from my colleagues in the House raise the question about whether we are all on board on that initiative to reduce emissions, but let us just assume for a minute that the majority of Canadians are. We know the majority of Canadians know that science is real, that climate change is real and that we need to do something. How do we go about incentivizing that change? I would submit that there are three ways to reduce emissions in the country. We can subsidize activities, whether they be new innovation or technology, to try to bring down emissions. We can regulate the activity. We can put in a pricing mechanism and allow the ingenuity of the private sector and the markets to reduce emissions. By the way, each one of those comes with a particular cost. If we subsidize the activity in question, there is a cost to taxpayers. We can regulate, and I will give an example. In my home province of Nova Scotia, we have a goal of being off coal-fired electricity by 2030. The compliance cost associated with that objective comes with cost downstream to consumers. On carbon pricing mechanisms, the Conservatives love to talk about the price signal, the cost. They never talk about the way in which the money under the federal backstop is returned back to households and businesses. This is missing from the actual entirety of the debate, if we want to have reasonable and informed conversation about this. Of course, we could do nothing, which I know some members in the House may agree with, that there is nothing to be done here. However, I have a statement from the Insurance Bureau of Canada that says that in 2023 alone, there were over $3 billion worth of insurable losses in the country as a direct result of extreme weather. That is a reality. The science is clear on the cost of doing nothing. I do not think any moral imperative would allow us to do that. Nor would the fact that this has a true cost to Canadians today. Last year alone, my riding had massive flooding. We rebuilt a bridge. Let along the human cost, as we lost four people in my riding, but I do not want to exaggerate that or make that a political point, let us just look at the actual cost of rebuilding in our communities. Each one of us paid out of our pocket to be there on that. Each one of us is paying out of our insurance premium to clean up after the frequency of the storms that are happening more and more often as a result of this imperative. Therefore, we have to do something. This government, as part of its emissions reduction plan, has said that we want to have a strategy to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 versus 2005 levels. A carbon price forms a third of that goal. A carbon price is inherently a small-c conservative policy. I chastise some of my Conservative colleagues on why they do not believe in the power of using the private sector and using markets to reduce emissions, as opposed to government programs or regulations. Why do they not want the power of that to happen? Economists are telling us it is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, but opposition members have made it their mission to denigrate the idea of carbon pricing without providing any alternatives on how they would actually go about this mission. The motion before us today talks about calling an emergency meeting with the Prime Minister. I have the letter that the Prime Minister sent out about 10 days ago to the premiers, who had been writing to him about the federal backstop as a pricing mechanism. The end of the letter says, “We...remain open to proposals for credible systems that price pollution that reflect the unique realities of your regions and meet the national benchmark.” The Conservative motion today should be encouraging the seven premiers in the provinces where they oppose the federal backstop to get together and have a conversation to come up with a different pricing mechanism. I guess it comes back to why carbon pricing matters. What is being lost in the national conversation is that there are billions of dollars of clean energy investment in our country that rely upon the fact that the price signal exists. If we sit down with any CEO who is exploring projects around decarbonization, he or she will say that the price signal forms an important basis of their investment decision. Premiers across the country, including in my home province of Nova Scotia, have a price on carbon at the industrial level. Danielle Smith has talked glowingly about the fact that industrial pricing is a key mechanism to fight climate change and reduce emissions. I find it ironic that the premiers will support that type of pricing, but they are unwilling to explore what else can be done. We know that the reason a federal backstop is imposed is because provinces had the opportunity to introduce their own pricing plans and either failed to do so or put forward a plan that did not meet the national stringency. There is a unique opportunity for the seven provinces that have signalled discontent with the federal backstop to work together to establish, perhaps, a national cap and trade. It is something equivalent to what Quebec has with California, where there is an ability for larger emitters and the price signal to be higher up stream to allow us to focus on larger emitters without having that same price impact at the pump. The premiers hold the pen on what is possible. They do not need to write to the Prime Minister. They need to write to each other. They need to get in a room and see if they are serious about putting forward a credible, carbon-pricing plan. The reason it has to be in each province is going back to the point I made around the economy, and that is the jobs that are associated with economic investment in the country. When I look at this opposition day motion, I do, for the record, support the idea of a first ministers meeting. It is really important to get down to the facts of what is and what is not around this conversation. I do not think it has to happen tomorrow. Let us let the premiers come up with a pricing plan and let us get back to what this was about. The Prime Minister has said that if they do not like the federal backstop, there are options. They can either do it alone or they can work together to come up with what that might represent. I support that. As a member of Parliament in this place, I did a lot of work on this side of the House to amend the federal backstop, not because I do not believe carbon pricing is an effective mechanism to reduce emissions and not because I do not believe that the rebate system back to households is inherently a bad idea, but I wanted that national policy to reflect rural and regional Canada in a way that I did not think it was doing in its original form. I would invite my Conservative colleagues, if they do not believe in the federal backstop, to present a climate agenda themselves. They use the term “technology not taxes” without any conversation about how we pay for the technology, which the Leader of the Opposition talks about, and they negate the fact that, under the federal backstop, the money actually goes back to households. The Conservatives will often go to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and look at the economic cost, so to speak, heading out to 2030. The PBO has made it very clear that he was comparing that plan versus doing nothing. He has made it very clear that both the cost to households directly and indirectly, the energy-embedded costs, still leave a majority of households better off.

1639 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Apr/9/24 1:31:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the B.C. Liberals introduced the first carbon tax in North America in 2009. I was a member with the party at the time. I categorically oppose this tax. Why? Because it does not work. Even former premier Christy Clark, under whose leadership I served, said on CTV last month, “it hasn't done any of the things that [the Prime Minister] said it was going to do. It's made life less affordable” and “we haven't met any of our climate goals.” Why will the tone-deaf, Liberal-NDP government, as well as the provincial NDP government, not listen to Canadians and axe the tax?

113 words

Carbon

Mr. Kody Blois

Apr/9/24 1:32:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned and rightfully recognized that he was part of the first introduction of a carbon price in North America, in British Columbia. It has worked in British Columbia. It has helped reduce emissions and has not impacted the economy. B.C. is doing well within the federation. Perhaps what the hon. member missed during my remarks is that the federal backstop is a tool if provinces choose to not come forward with any type of credible pricing plan. I would ask him to engage with corporate leaders across the country, who will tell him that a carbon price, particularly at the industrial level, matters for economic investment in the country around decarbonization. The member wants to go about it, I guess, in a big-government way, which is not the most cost-effective. It is actually quite anti-Conservative. He wants to use a more expensive way to reduce emissions. Economists are clear that carbon pricing is the most effective way to do so. I guess he also wants government to decide as opposed to letting the private sector decide. Where have the Conservatives gone? Where are the folks on that side who believe in the private market? They are not really stepping forward at this point.

212 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Apr/9/24 1:33:34 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am so conflicted between two questions. One is to have the member respond to the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake, basically blaming his own constituents for the wildfires and what constituents should do in the next election so they are not blamed for the wildfires. However, I am more curious about what his response is to the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that Canada would have generated $4 billion in revenue with a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, but the Liberals voted with the Conservatives against it when the NDP put forward that motion. I wonder if the member can respond to that and how the Liberal government will do better to protect families rather than protecting for-profit corporations that are benefiting from climate change.

131 words

Wildfires

Mr. Kody Blois

Apr/9/24 1:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake made the assertion in the House, as I understand it, because I heard the back end of his comments, that fires were not as a result of climate change, that the extreme weather we were seeing was not tied to climate change, that people would go out and set fires themselves. I take notice that some fires are started accidentally, but the idea that all forest fires we are seeing or the extremity of the weather that we are seeing has no connection to climate change is the most tone-deaf thing I think I have heard this entire week in the House and maybe in last couple of months. To address the other portion of the member's question around having larger corporate entities and businesses contribute toward programs that matter to Canadians and toward the programs that could help reduce emissions, I agree with the concept of how to ensure our larger emitters can be responsible for driving those investments and reducing emissions. I do think we are at a time right now where corporate leadership needs to be cognizant and read the room.

195 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Apr/9/24 1:35:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week, I went atop the CN Tower to see if I could see my riding of York—Simcoe, and I could not. We know rural Canadians are disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax, but my riding does not receive the rural top-up, the soup and salad bowl of Canada. It is unbelievable. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the carbon tax disproportionately affecting rural Canadians and why we are not getting the rural top-up.

82 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 296