SoVote

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

Mr. Kody Blois

Apr/9/24 1:36:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, I fought very hard for his constituents and mine and all rural Canadians to get a higher rural top-up of 20%, which his party is standing in the way of right now in relation to rural Canadians. On the definition, the member is absolutely right. There has to be a revisiting of what defines a rural community versus what is not. I know the hon. member is a good man. I encourage him to push the Conservative Party to put forward a serious climate plan, because it is important in the days ahead.

102 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Apr/9/24 1:37:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. Unlike Sleeping Beauty, who was awakened by a kiss of love, Canadians are waking up after eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister to find out that he is just not worth the cost. They are waking up with a Judas kiss. They have been betrayed with the Judas kiss from the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister. After eight years of the Prime Minister, who promised sunny ways and sunny days, life has become dark and dreary for Canadians, and especially for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have woken up to rent that has doubled, mortgages that have doubled, prices of food that have doubled and gasoline that they cannot afford. The costly coalition is going to make the carbon tax on fuel that they need for the necessities of life go to 61¢ a litre. When one taxes the fish and the food that fishermen and farmers catch and grow, the truckers who transport food and the grocery stores that sell the food, they tax the consumers who buy the food. The out-of-control spending, which has also led to a housing crisis, is forcing more and more Canadians to food banks, Canadians like those in Gander where the food bank is run by Winston Howse, whom I spoke to last week. He is very concerned about how the demand at his food bank has risen by 44% in just six months. He does not know where to turn. His volunteers are getting burnt out. Not only do the folks who volunteer at the food bank not know where to turn, but the premiers also do not know where to turn. They begged the Prime Minister to not raise the carbon tax by 23% on April 1; however, their pleas fell on deaf ears. Even provincial Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador, led by Premier Furey, have now turned against the carbon tax after eight years. With all of their pleas falling on deaf ears, begging the Prime Minister not to raise the carbon tax by 23%, the premiers are now asking for an emergency meeting between the 14 first ministers and the costly coalition Prime Minister. They want to discuss the ongoing carbon tax crisis, the recent 23% increase in carbon tax and the plans for provinces to opt out of federal carbon tax and to implement reasonable measures to reduce emissions. The premiers know that the carbon tax is just not working. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know that the carbon tax is not working. There are just no options for rural Canadians to reduce their emissions by changing the things they do from day to day. Folks in Fogo who need to drive to St. John's for a doctor's appointment do not have a choice but to drive. They cannot take a SkyTrain. Fishermen on the sea who need to get their life rafts serviced in Donovans Business Park in Mount Pearl and also need to pick up some fishing gear in St. John's cannot stop burning gas, so there is no option for those fishermen either. As all the premiers, including Premier Furey, who has lost his clout with the Prime Minister, beg for a first ministers meeting to discuss the carbon tax, what has the Prime Minister been up to along with his costly coalition ministers? They have been jet-setting around Canada trying to sell their upcoming budget. Instead of Canadians' being able to wait until April 16 to listen to what is in the budget, the Prime Minister was in Vancouver on March 28 and Ottawa on March 29. On April 1 he was in Toronto and on April 4 in Winnipeg. On April 5 he was in Calgary, and on April 6 in Ottawa. On April 7 he was back to Montreal, and on April 8 he was in Trenton spewing CO2 while he spewed his costly coalition budget and told us how he is going to keep his ATM machine going. Canadians could have waited until April 16 to hear what is in the budget. Common-sense Conservatives have a plan. We will axe the tax. We will use technology, not taxes. I know my hon. colleague for Avalon is all about it. With respect to Canadian provinces, Nova Scotia has 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. New Brunswick has 120 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and Newfoundland and Labrador has 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. There are huge opportunities for LNG. Our allies, the leaders of Japan and Germany, and lately Greece, are coming to Canada begging for LNG. Natural gas produces half the emissions of coal, so I have some not so fun facts here. The world usage of coal has risen, since 2015, from 7.7 billion tonnes to 8.5 billion tonnes in 2023. That is a more than 10% increase in eight years. Coal emissions in 2023 were 15 billion tonnes. If we convert that to natural gas, it drops to 7.5 billion tonnes. Canada's total emissions are 670 million tonnes. By converting all that coal to natural gas, we would drop the world's emissions by more than 11 times what Canada actually produces, yet we have the useless carbon tax that the government is telling Canadians is going to save the world. Canada could be a real part of the solution. The Prime Minister has said there is no business case for Canadian LNG, yet the United States has built seven new LNG facilities since 2016. Right now it has one in Corpus Christi, which is 8,500 kilometres from Germany. Newfoundland and Labrador is 4,300 kilometres from Germany. It is half the distance, yet there is supposedly no business case for LNG. Corpus Christi is 10,264 kilometres from Greece, yet we have told the Greek prime minister that there is no business case to send Canadian gas to Greece although we are only 5,900 kilometres from there. Again, we are half the distance in Newfoundland and Labrador, where we can produce LNG, compared to the distance to the LNG terminals in the Gulf of Mexico. We can be part of the solution. Canada can play a role. Canadian premiers know that there are solutions. Canadian provinces can play a role, especially the Atlantic provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador. The Prime Minister needs to be the servant, not the master. He needs to listen to the premiers and grant their wish for a first ministers meeting to deal with the carbon tax crisis. The premiers who wrote the letters have heard what their citizens are going through in the various provinces and are begging for a first ministers meeting. My hon. colleague from Avalon hears it every day when he is talking to the folks who elected him and sent him to Ottawa to represent them. I hope he can convince his colleagues on that side of the House to vote for our motion for the Prime Minister to convene a first ministers meeting and follow the wishes of the premiers, because Canadians are waking up from a nightmare. If the premiers cannot put enough heat on to take the tax off, Canadians are going to have to wait. However, they will wake up to a better day when they elect the common-sense Conservatives, led by our common-sense leader. We will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime, and bring it home.

1272 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 1:46:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I would like to invite the hon. member to take out a pen. I have two quick questions. I know he can handle them, and I will let him take some notes. First, he talked about the Atlantic provinces' being part of the clean energy solution to reduce emissions, yet he stands in the way of Bill C-49, a bill that is supported by his home government in Newfoundland and Labrador, without reason. It is a bill that would actually drive really important results for energy jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. He talked about technology, not taxes, but then voted against the bill. Can he explain his position there? Second, can he give an indication to his constituents and the House as to whether or not he believes climate change is real and that we ought to do something to reduce emissions? How would he incentivize the technology he is talking about? Would he spend taxpayer dollars in an inefficient way to do it? How would he go about that?

173 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Apr/9/24 1:47:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I will start with the member's last question. We do not need to incentivize natural gas. Free enterprise can invest in LNG, build pipelines and send LNG to countries in the world that are burning coal, in order to get their emissions down really fast, to half of what they produce right now. The fishing industry has grave concerns with Bill C-49, including six fish harvester groups I have been consulting with that the costly coalition did not consult with in forming the bill. They are counting on us. The FFAW in Newfoundland and Labrador worked with us to build the amendments to Bill C-49 that the member's side voted down in committee three weeks ago.

122 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Apr/9/24 1:48:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about natural gas going to Germany. I was actually in Germany last year. I met with the chancellor at that time and spoke to him. He made it very clear that in the short term, Germany is interested in natural gas, but in the long term, it is not. It is actually interested in renewable energies. I know it is on the other side of the country from the member, but in my province of Alberta, Premier Danielle Smith has shut down 66 billion dollars' worth of investment in renewable energy. I wonder whether the member agrees with Danielle Smith's Conservative stance on renewable energy, knowing that countries around the world want to see Canada move towards a greener energy grid.

127 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Apr/9/24 1:49:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not here to talk about the Premier of Alberta; I am here to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that we have 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying under the Grand Banks and under the Labrador Sea. That natural gas could go to Germany, which is building steam plants right now that in the interim could be fuelled by natural gas. Down the road, when we can have green hydrogen, hydrogen could replace natural gas; however for now, the quickest way to get emissions down is to use natural gas. In terms of the green revolution, it takes over 18 years to green-light a mine to produce the rare elements needed in the green transition. The government, with Bill C-69, is destroying our mining industry and our opportunity to take part in the green economy.

151 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Apr/9/24 1:50:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all day we have been hearing from the other side of the House that Conservatives do not want to have a serious conversation about the environment. However, when I hear a Conservative like the Premier of New Brunswick suggest that there is a lot of constructive dialogue around liquid natural gas and combatting global change in that way, I am more optimistic. I wonder what my colleague thinks about the opportunity for good, constructive conversations.

77 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Apr/9/24 1:51:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we need to have good, constructive conversation. The premiers want to have that conversation. They know that the opportunity lies there for all of them to take part in an initiative to lower global emissions. Premier Higgs just gave great testimony, talking about his province's vast amounts of natural gas and how he wants to get rid of the crazy regulations and reduce the red tape so Newfoundland and New Brunswick could liquify their natural gas and get it to Europe, Greece, India and China and bring down their emissions fast.

94 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Apr/9/24 1:52:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for once the Prime Minister has achieved unity among Canadians. He has united Canadians in opposition to his failed carbon tax. I cannot recall the last time 70% of Canadians, and eight out of 10 provinces, opposed a federal government policy, but the NDP-Liberal coalition has defied the odds and united Canadians against the costly carbon tax. The Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. At a time when Canadians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, the Prime Minister ploughed ahead with his plan to quadruple the carbon tax anyway. It was a cruel April fool's joke to play on Canadians, but it was one that Canadians will remember. I have personally received home heating bills from hundreds of Canadians who cannot believe the true cost of the carbon tax. I received a heating bill from a local landscaping business. The actual monthly cost of the natural gas was $272. The cost of the carbon tax on the natural gas was $330. Canadians are now paying more in carbon tax on their heating bills than they are for natural gas itself. Punishing Canadians for heating their homes is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan that is creating energy poverty across the nation. The Liberals pretend that their carbon tax is needed to reduce emissions. They tell Canadians that, if they quit complaining and pay their costly carbon tax, emissions will go down. Let us talk about the environmental result of the carbon tax. After eight years of the Prime Minister, emissions have gone up, not down. In fact, the government's very own environment commissioner has stated that the Liberals are not on track to meet their own 2030 emissions targets. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada now ranks 62nd out of 67 countries, according to the global climate change performance index. That is four rankings lower since the last carbon tax hike. After eight years of the Prime Minister, we would think he could tell Canadians the amount his carbon tax has reduced emissions, but he cannot because his environment minister revealed the truth when he admitted, “The government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing.” After eight years of the Prime Minister, this is his carbon tax record: emissions are up; climate change performance is down; and no one knows if the carbon tax reduces emissions because the Liberals do not measure the results. Canadians will not be fooled by the government. They know that the carbon tax is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan. That is why common-sense Conservatives have been exposing the carbon tax scam at the environment committee. For months, we have been demanding that the environment minister release his carbon tax emissions analysis, but he has refused. In fact, the environment minister failed to hand over the government's carbon tax emissions model, despite the environment committee ordering him to. If the Liberals are so proud of the carbon tax, what are they hiding? If the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal coalition will not listen to Conservatives, they should listen to the premiers across Canada. For months, Canada's premiers have been begging the Prime Minister to cancel his carbon tax, but he increased the carbon tax anyway. Even Liberal premiers oppose the Prime Minister's plan to quadruple the carbon tax on Canadians. The Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador stated that the carbon tax “is causing understandable worry as people consider how they will manage the mounting financial strain.” The Premier of New Brunswick tweeted, “Since imposing his Carbon tax six years ago, New Brunswickers have been subject to brutal increases every single year. These make the cost of everyday items such as food, fuel and groceries more expensive, driving up the cost of living for everyone.” The Premier of Prince Edward Island stated, “Further driving up costs for Island households by increasing the price of carbon in April...will create an untenable situation for many P.E.I. residents, especially our most vulnerable who will feel the economy-wide price increases”. The Premier of Nova Scotia wrote to the Prime Minister: Your carbon tax is not the way to accomplish the goals of reducing emissions and increasing renewable energy. And it is not in the best interest of Nova Scotians. The only thing it means is more money out of their pockets to pay an unnecessary carbon tax. The Premier of Ontario has stated, “The carbon tax is the worst tax ever put on a bunch of people”, and the Premier of Manitoba said, “I think that there’s an argument that Manitoba is maybe one of the strongest cases you could make, that the price on carbon should be revisited in our jurisdiction”. The Premier of Saskatchewan said, “Saskatchewan has been steadfast in our opposition to the consumer Carbon Tax and its adverse impacts on Canadian families and businesses. Addressing climate change is a priority for Saskatchewan, but an ideological one-size-fits-all...approach is ineffective”, and the Premier of Alberta stated, “The carbon tax has contributed to increasing stress and financial pain for millions of Canadians”. At what point does the NDP-Liberal coalition put ideology aside and listen to Canadians? If the Prime Minister truly believed in representing all Canadians, he would call an emergency meeting of Canada's premiers to hear the concerns with respect to the carbon tax. That is what Conservatives are calling for today. That is why we put forward this common-sense motion. It is disturbing that Parliament must vote for a meeting between the Prime Minister and the premiers, but we had no choice because the Prime Minister refuses to listen. What happened to the sunny ways and the openness the Prime Minister once preached? It is very easy to see why Canadian premiers have lost trust in the Prime Minister over his failed carbon tax, and it is because he has continued to mislead them for eight years. Before 2019, the Prime Minister's former environment minister promised Canadians not to raise the carbon tax over $50 a tonne. After the election, the Prime Minister announced his plan to quadruple the carbon tax. In fact, the current environment minister is now refusing to rule out any further carbon tax hikes. I asked the environment minister if he could promise Canadians not to raise the carbon tax over $170 a tonne. He refused to answer. I wonder why. The Prime Minister also told Canadians that they would get back more than they paid in carbon tax, but the government's own Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that wrong. In fact, the majority of Canadians will pay more in carbon tax than they will get back. It is no wonder the premiers across Canada have lost trust in the government's carbon tax scam, and no wonder they are demanding a meeting with the Prime Minister. It sure does not help when the environment minister punishes Canadians for driving their cars and heating their homes as he jets around the globe lecturing others. The hypocrisy is truly astounding, and Canadian premiers are right to call the government out.

1230 words

Mr. Heath MacDonald (Malpeque, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 2:00:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the Kensington Monaghan Farms Wild, which captured the Atlantic major under 18 men's hockey championship this past weekend in Nova Scotia. This weekend's victory by the Wild followed an impressive performance in the Island provincial championships last month and marks the latest accomplishment in their highly successful season. For the first time in 20 years, an Island team will represent Atlantic Canada in the under 18 men's national championship, and it is the first time in the Kensington Wild's history that they will represent Atlantic Canada at the national championship. I would like to congratulate everyone involved for their accomplishments and hard work this season, from coaches to players, parents and volunteers, and everyone who has played a part in this exciting season. The Wild has made the entire Island proud. We look forward to watching all of them represent Atlantic Canada at the Telus Cup later this month.

162 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Apr/9/24 2:01:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, recently, Red Deer Polytechnic hosted a transformational celebration of a major gift from one of Canada's leading philanthropic families, that of the late Jack Donald, his wife, Joan, and their children, John and Kathy. The Donald family institute for healthtech innovation will stand tall in the creation of an ecosystem where teams of experts, practitioners, researchers, faculty and students will collaborate on a solutions-based approach to health care training, applied research and economic diversification across Alberta. As matriarch, Joan Donald, said at the unveiling, “As a family we believe in supporting our community, and one of the best ways to enrich your community is to support education and health care.” Jack and Joan Donald will continue to have an indelible, positive impact on RDP learners, our community and the province of Alberta and beyond for years to come. A celebration of Jack's life will be held at the Westerner on April 20. We thank the Donald family for its commitment to and love of our community, our province and our nation.

178 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 2:03:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every three minutes in Canada, someone is diagnosed with cancer, a diagnosis that will change their life and the lives of all their family members forever because, if one is diagnosed with cancer, pretty well everything else in life, including much of what we do here, seems pretty insignificant in comparison. The COVID pandemic showed us what the global scientific community can do when it puts its collective mind toward something. Experts were predicting it was going to take us years to come up with vaccines, and we came up with several within a year. Why can we not do the same thing to try to beat cancer? In the United States, the Biden administration has pledged to prevent four million deaths by the year 2047. We in Canada can and ought to make a similar commitment. Nothing in life is ever accomplished unless one tries.

148 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/9/24 2:04:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the coach in me is very proud to announce that my team, Rouyn-Noranda's Pro Gaz/Studio Rythme et Danse team, is the Quebec champion. Thanks to some spectacular saves by goalie Alexy Lajeunesse against the mighty Sherbrooke Phoenix 2, we won the interregional championship in the M13 B category in Drummondville on Sunday. Hard work was an integral part of the Pro Gaz team's identity, with a devastating offence made up of Landen, Félix, Alex, the courageous Océane, Raphaël and Jules, and an impenetrable defence made up of Natan, Samuel, Emrik and Éloick. I want to congratulate my coaching team, including Éric, the brains behind it all, Steven, Sandy and Marc-Antoine. I also want to thank all the parents. In closing, I need to talk about a unique player, our own “Captain Clutch”, Jules Lemire, who scored the final goal in the shootout. He notched seven goals in five games, including the overtime winner in the quarter-final. His total was just shy of a hundred goals this year. He took on all the pressure, but at the end of the year, he was the one who got to hold the big banner. Jules Lemire, you are my hero. I love you, son.

219 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 296