Natural Resources Committee on March 18th, 2024

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I must have just missed putting an X on this one, then. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's okay. It's good to ask.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I just wanted to be sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We were at clause 78.

Shall clause 78 carry?

(Clause 78 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clause 79 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clause 80 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 81 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 82 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I would be willing to group clauses 83 to 86 together, if the committee would agree to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think we have consent. There are no objections.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order. I just want to say how pleased I am by how well we're getting along—and it's Monday. Who knows how well we'll be getting along by Wednesday, but on Monday, I'll take it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for that suggestion.

Shall clauses 83 to 86 carry?

(Clauses 83 to 86 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10, nays 1)

(Clause 87 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 88 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clause 89 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clause 90 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Clauses 91 through 95 can be clumped together if the committee agrees.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Are there any objections?

There are no objections.

Shall clauses 91 to 95 carry?

(Clauses 91 to 95 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10, nays 1)

(Clause 96 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm just wondering if I can get consent from the committee to group clauses 97 all the way through to clause 110.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Are there any objections?

There are no objections.

We will go from clause 97 to clause 106, because that's the first part of the bill, and then we'll continue on after that, Mr. Patzer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay. That's fair enough.

(Clauses 97 to 106 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Now we will be moving to part 2 of Bill C-49.

No amendments to clauses 107 to 110 have been submitted. Do we have the unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Clauses 107 to 110 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 111)

Do we have a member who would like to move amendment CPC-9?

Ms. Stubbs, go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Before I move this amendment, I want to speak to the motion I submitted on March 15. I took your feedback at the last meeting under advisement, so I'm confident that this will suffice for your approach.

I think colleagues around this table will know well that I'm a proud first-generation Albertan, born and raised in Alberta. Like so many Albertans, my roots come from Atlantic Canada, my mother being from Newfoundland and my father and his family being from Nova Scotia.

That being the case, and given that this is the last sitting week before April 1, and because of the common-sense leadership of our leader Pierre Poilievre, Conservatives are doing everything we can to try to get the NDP-Liberals to reverse course on their cruel carbon tax. This week we are using every tool we can in Parliament to call on the Liberals to spike the hike and axe the tax for good.

I think this motion is timely and should be a high priority of the natural resources committee, given that seven out of 10 premiers are calling for the NDP-Liberal costly coalition to, at the very least, stop their plan to quadruple the carbon tax on all Canadians on April 1.

Conservatives would axe the tax for all for good.

This particular motion does focus on the challenges that Albertans and Alberta families face in paying the NDP-Liberals' carbon tax. We should note that Alberta joins six other provinces calling for this change that, to date, the Prime Minister and the radical anti-energy minister Steven Guilbeault have in turn dismissed, derided and ignored. They have claimed that elected representatives who are calling to axe the carbon tax or to spike the hike are immoral or short-sighted. I would suggest to all members here that what is in fact immoral is the Liberals' tax-and-spend agenda and their inflationary deficit spending.

Mostly and quite directly through the imposition of their carbon tax 1 and their carbon tax 2, it is immoral that more Canadians than ever before are forced to go to food banks and more Canadians than ever before can't afford the essential basics required for daily life in any part of this country, and that these NDP-Liberals are willing to ignore those struggles, ignore that pain, ignore that hurt and impose their tax-and-spend agenda, which is what the carbon tax is. It's only a cash grab, not an environmental plan.

The proof of the failure of the carbon tax, as we know, is that there have been none of the promised emissions reductions that its proponents asserted; it is not revenue-neutral; and the vast majority of Canadians pay more into the carbon tax than they ever have a hope of getting back from this government's carbon tax rebate scheme and scam.

That being the case, my motion is the following. I move:

That, given that,

(i) Alberta is 1 of 7 provinces that oppose the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax increase on April 1st, 2024,

(ii) the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost Alberta families over $2700 per year once the carbon tax is quadrupled, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer,

The committee call on the Liberal Government to immediately cancel the 23% carbon tax increase on April 1st, 2024, and that this motion be reported to the House.

I want to read some comments recently made by the Premier of Alberta. They are among many. She wrote:

I'm joining my provincial counterparts in writing to reiterate our concerns that Albertans and Canadians have faced incredible pressures due to crippling inflation and high interest rates.

That's why, on behalf of Albertans, I urge you to scrap the punitive carbon tax. If your government is unwilling to listen to the millions of Canadians calling for this, we're insisting you provide a uniform exemption on all forms of home heating including natural gas for all provinces.

Also, of course, her comments back up and align with the words of the PC Premier of Nova Scotia and the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Premier Houston of Nova Scotia has said:

On April 1st Nova Scotians fuelling their cars will pay 3.3 cents more per litre in a carbon tax at the pumps, meaning Nova Scotians will pay a total of 17.6 cents in a carbon tax on every litre of gas they buy. This is unfair and misguided.

Isn't he right? The last thing Nova Scotians and Canadians need right now is more tax. The cost of living is top of mind for people as we experience some of the highest increases in inflation in 30 years.

The number one ask by Nova Scotians in this year's provincial budget consultation, says Premier Houston, was for tax relief. Rather than imposing a punishing carbon tax that will hurt Nova Scotians, Premier Houston says:

...I am asking that you cancel the carbon tax before any more financial damage is done and work with us to focus on the most beneficial path for the environment, that would mean a more self-reliant (and cheaper!) path for Nova Scotia.

Of course, those same concerns, that same advocacy for the escalating struggles that everyday Canadians face in every province and territory of this country, are echoed by Liberal Premier Furey of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said:

Workers and families in Newfoundland and Labrador, throughout the country and indeed around the globe, continue to face the most significant cost of living crisis in a generation. For the past two years now, Canadians have endured persistent and punishing inflation, coupled with the most aggressive upward interest rate trajectory in the history of the Bank of Canada....

The coming almost 25 percent increase...in the federal carbon tax on April 1st is causing understandable worry as people consider how they will manage the mounting financial strain.

...I respectfully request that you consider pausing the implementation of the April 1st carbon tax increase—at least until inflation stabilizes, interest rates lower and related economic pressures on the cost of living sufficiently cool.

That's just a selection of comments coming from the premiers, who are advocating on behalf of the people they represent—which are also all the same people we represent—knowing that without a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of Canadians cannot afford the carbon tax as it is, never mind actually being able to figure out where in the heck they're going to get any more money to pay for a quadrupling of this carbon tax on April 1, skyrocketing even more in less than six years from now. That is what is immoral. That is what is short-sighted. That is what is repugnant. That is unacceptable. It's reprehensible.

I hope committee members will welcome this opportunity to demonstrate to the people who elected them that they will fight for their cost of living, fight for their livelihoods, fight for them to have more affordable lives and actually listen, after nine years, to Canadian after Canadian and elected representative after elected representative saying that this is the wrong course.

The carbon tax is a cash grab. It's not an environmental plan. Canadians cannot afford it, and the carbon tax is not worth the cost.

I do hope that all members will support this motion today.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Now we'll go to our identified speaking order here.

We'll go to you, Mr. Aldag. Go ahead.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to say that what I find repugnant and reprehensible is the continued obstruction we see from our Conservative colleagues as we are trying to move forward this piece of legislation. We've heard from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that the provinces are waiting for us to get this work done.

We had a discussion at the beginning of the meeting about taking time away from the work of this committee to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Mulroney, yet we can go on these filibusters about motions to disrupt the work of the committee. I just find that this is another attempt to obstruct the work this committee needs to do, particularly on this piece of legislation, and therefore I move to adjourn debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a motion, Mr. Clerk, to adjourn debate. Could you please call the roll?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

That motion carries. Debate is adjourned. We'll now go back to where we were on CPC-9.

Ms. Stubbs, you were going to move CPC-9, I believe.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair, yes.

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 111, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 85 with the following:

or 45(7), section 67, subsection 70(2), section 98.2,

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Shall CPC-9 carry?

[An hon. member]

Yes.