Debates of Sept. 27th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member had perused his notes before he read them, he would seen that he made reference to the Prime Minister by name, and he is not allowed to do that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I suspected that was the point of order the hon. parliamentary secretary was rising on.

I would hope the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets will be mindful of what is in his notes.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how that one slipped by, but I thank the member for Winnipeg North. I will repeat the sentence altered.

The Liberal tax is bad for Nova Scotia. It will have no effect on the excellent work that Nova Scotians have done and will continue to do to reduce the carbon footprint. There is an alternative to the dogmatic approach of Ottawa, which was proposed by Premier Houston. If the Liberal government was serious about tackling climate change, it would encourage innovation and new approaches to the problem. Instead, it has a rigid set of rules that do not allow for programs that go beyond the realm of its tax agenda.

As families across the country struggle to make ends meet, dirty oil continues to be shipped to ports in Atlantic Canada from places like Saudi Arabia. This means human rights-abusing dictators are getting rich on Canada’s oil needs while a single mom in my riding cannot afford nutritious food. There is, of course, a solution to the problem. By unleashing Canada’s natural resource sector and approving good Canadian projects, global emissions will be reduced, which is our goal. That is because we have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world.

The oil cultivated and extracted in Canada is the cleanest, most efficient energy in the world. On top of that, the emissions produced by shipping oil across the Atlantic Ocean to New Brunswick from the Middle East completely negates any benefit from a carbon tax. Let us green-light Newfoundland and Labrador’s planned increase in oil production, which will allow us to fully replace every single barrel of oil we are importing from abroad to Atlantic Canada within five years. Let us tackle climate change by unleashing Canada’s mining of minerals needed to produce the batteries for electric vehicles. Let us make Canada a place where nuclear and hydroelectricity generation is welcomed and not admonished.

The carbon tax does not work, and it is time for it to go. Canadians just cannot afford the government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I could be wrong, but I thought I heard the member say in his speech that Nova Scotia does not have its own system in place and, as a result, it is subject to the federal regime, but that is actually not the case.

In Nova Scotia, if one goes to Canada.ca, it shows that it has its own cap and trade system, so Nova Scotia is not subject to the federal regime as it relates to the price on pollution. As a matter of fact, Nova Scotia, at least according to the government's own website, is doing a very good job and, therefore, does not need federal government intervention.

I am wondering if the member would help export from that province the system Nova Scotia is using to encourage other provinces and territories throughout the country to use it, so they will not have to rely on that. Finally, I want to congratulate the member from Nova Scotia for having it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is right. We do have a cap and trade system in Nova Scotia that adds 1¢ a litre to gas. The federal government wants that to triple, which would immediately add 14¢ more a litre to gas in Nova Scotia, and it would build that to 40¢ a litre by 2030.

That is the plan of the federal government, to push up the cap and trade system and costing Nova Scotians more, and that is what we reject. We reject that approach when all these other methods, which I have outlined in my speech, show how we can get there with technology and not taxes.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, if there is one aspect of my colleague's speech that I agree with, it is this: When it comes to fighting climate change, we need to focus on new technologies. However, money does not grow on trees.

Quebec is truly a leader in that regard. Not only do we manufacture electric batteries but we also recycle them. We are manufacturing electric buses. A factory in Shawinigan is even producing electric snowmobiles. That is significant.

Money does not grow on trees, and yet the government is handing the oil industry $12 bilion. If the government took that money and invested it in new technologies, that would help speed up the transition to new technologies.

Does my colleague agree?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is always a very entertaining member in the House.

I can say what we really need, and I applaud the innovation that is happening in Quebec. We have innovation happening in Nova Scotia too, but the federal government is ignoring that innovation. It thinks there is only one way to deal with this issue, which is a tax that is not working. The government has had this in place for almost seven years, and it has missed its carbon target every single year. That is the proof. British Columbia has had the tax even longer, and it has missed all its targets. Therefore, I would ask the government to take the blinders off and look at alternatives that work.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party members are talking a lot about how families are struggling, often including the current new leader of the Conservative Party's mentioning cryptocurrencies as a way out of inflation, and they often mention single moms needing help. I actually was a single mom. When I was a single mom, I needed dental care and universal child care, and I needed parties like the Conservative Party to go after big CEOs from big corporations, such as Galen Weston from Loblaws, who makes $5,100 per hour.

Would my colleague agree with me that the Conservatives' failure to support dental care and universal child care, and to go after the root of the problem, such as leaders of big grocery chains, is actually hurting families more? Will he actually name the elephant in the room?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, Nancy in my riding is a single mother living on disability near Bridgewater. She makes $875 a month. In the winter, she has to heat her home with oil from Saudi Arabia. That costs $700 a month. The government wants to increase the cost of that by 40¢ a litre. Why is it that members of the NDP–Liberal coalition do not care about people like Nancy in my riding?

The dental care program proposed by the NDP–Liberal government, one-time payments to duplicate what provincial governments already provide, is ridiculous.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind members that, when an hon. member has the floor, it is not their opportunity to ask questions or make comments. I would ask members to hold off until they are recognized during the questions and comments period.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has the floor.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Today feels like Groundhog Day because, once again, we are here talking about the price on pollution. It could almost be 2015, which was one of the first times this topic was brought up in a federal election, but there have been three federal elections since then where putting a price on pollution was one of the main items at the ballot box. It almost feels as though, for the last five years, we have not been having discussions with the premiers across the country about whether or not the federal government had a constitutional ability to bring in a price on pollution. It is almost as though we did not have a Supreme Court of Canada case affirm that Canada does indeed have the ability to do this, and that Canada does indeed have to act on a problem that is this fundamental to our country and to the entire world.

I also find it somewhat tone deaf that we are having this discussion today, in the wake of seeing the devastation that has happened in Atlantic Canada, where hurricane Fiona swept through and caused immeasurable damage to communities and loss of life. We know that this event was only made possible because of climate change and warming sea currents. In the past, these types of hurricanes would have died down over colder water, but now, with warming ocean currents, we are seeing much more severe weather events, such as the hurricanes that are now hitting our shores.

I also find it tone deaf given the devastation we saw in my province of British Columbia last year, where we saw temperatures reach nearly 50°C, with heat domes boiling billions of organisms alive. We saw devastating forest fires, and we saw the atmospheric river, which was the most devastating weather event in our country's history.

I find it particularly tone deaf because not only is this motion the first Conservative motion being put forward, but it is also being put forward without any alternative climate policy at the same time. Therefore, it is clear to me that this motion is not about supporting Canadians with affordability measures. Instead, it is really about blocking climate action.

I find it puzzling that Conservatives portray themselves as being in favour of market-based systems for getting value for money in government spending, but in opposing this policy, they are eschewing what is seen quite widely, including by the IMF, as the most effective and efficient way of reducing pollution. This is pollution that we know is not otherwise accounted for but has a major impact on local human health and on worsening climate change, and I just mentioned some of the major events that we have seen recently. By failing to put a price on pollution, we are allowing this externality to not be properly accounted for, and we know that this particularly impacts the most vulnerable among us.

The Conservatives also portray themselves as the party focused on affordability, but this is going against a policy that we know provides more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians families, particularly low-income Canadians, who are most at risk with the rising cost of living. Of course, we know that the less one pollutes, the more one saves when one gets the climate action incentive.

I find it particularly puzzling because the Conservative Party just last year ran on a platform that included putting a price on pollution, albeit the proposal was a very inefficient and convoluted one. However, this is very puzzling to a member from British Columbia, where we have had a price on pollution in place for almost 15 years. This policy was, in fact, brought in by the right of centre party in my province. We have seen that, by bringing in this policy, it has not impacted the economic growth in my province, which has been among the leaders in Canada ever since.

It is also puzzling because we know that the alternatives are no better. Focusing on regulations alone, we know, is highly costly. We know that, by simply investing in technologies, the government would then be forced to pick winners, which is essentially gambling to a certain extent on one of the biggest challenges that our generation is going to face.

It is also reckless that by abdicating responsibility to act and to repeal policies for climate action, the Conservative Party is letting its intransigence and opposition to climate action cause uncertainty for business, which is impacting the types of investments we need to see business make in technologies and measures that are going to mitigate their emissions. It is also impacting the way we can see growth in clean tech, which the Conservative Party has said it wants to support.

Over the course of the last few months, the environment and sustainable development committee has been undergoing a study on clean tech. What we have heard from nearly all the witnesses is that having policy certainty in place and having a predictable climate policy is essential to providing the certainty and confidence that businesses need to see to invest now in programs and make investments that are going to take five to 10 years to be fully put into place.

By opposing climate action, the Conservatives are also completely ignoring the catastrophic financial costs of climate change-fuelled weather events in Canada, which have a direct cost on people.

I mentioned the flooding in B.C. last year, which was the most expensive weather event in Canadian history. The forest fires in Fort McMurray cost almost $10 billion to rebuild. We know that hurricane Fiona is also going to cost billions. We all pay for these costs through the rising price of goods, taxes and lost productivity, which leads to inflation when it causes supply chain disruptions, which we saw in B.C. last year. It also impacts the price of the food we are buying when we see climate change-fuelled droughts and other wet-weather events disrupting agricultural production.

I will put it in some other language I know the Conservative Party will understand very well. We cannot opt out of inflation by investing in crypto. We opt out of inflation by getting off our reliance on fossil fuels, where we are at the mercy of global markets that can be upset by the actions of a foreign dictator. To reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we need to incentivize the switch to clean, domestically controlled energy sources that are not at the mercy of outside influences. The best way to do this is by pricing pollution as well as supporting the switch to cleaner alternatives. Whether it would be affordability, national security, economic growth or climate change, pricing pollution is our most important and effective tool.

The solution to affordability is not to make emissions free again. The solution involves targeted solutions like the ones we have brought in over the last seven years and the ones that we propose to bring in through Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. These new measures include the Canada housing benefit, which will deliver an extra $500 for low-income renters. It includes bringing in the new Canada dental benefit for children under the age of 12 who do not have dental insurance, which will involve payments of up to $650 per child per year. It involves doubling the goods and services tax credit that will provide $2.5 billion in total to 11 million recipients.

This, of course, builds on our history of cutting taxes for the middle class by raising taxes on the top 1% and delivering the Canada child benefit, which has raised over 300,000 children out of poverty and puts more money back in the pockets of nine in 10 families. This year, we have cut child care costs in half right across the country and are going to get down to $10 a day in the next four years.

We know that climate action can be done in a way that saves people money. It is also why we launched the greener homes grant, so people can do home energy retrofits, and the greener homes loan for some of the deeper ones that people need to do, so they can save money on their energy bills. It is also why we are supporting Canadians to switch to zero-emission vehicles, with a $5,000 grant for this type of option.

In my home province of B.C., in the first quarter of 2022, over 15.5% of new vehicle sales have been for zero-emission vehicles. These are Canadians who are going to be saving a significant amount of money on their gas bills.

This is why we have brought in the price on pollution, which is, again, putting more money back into the pockets of eight out of 10 families, and is one of the most cost-efficient and affordable ways of climate action.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about natural resource development and about all the discrepancies of the Conservative Party.

What he failed to outline is that, in 2018, the Prime Minister came to British Columbia and spoke, with great fanfare, about the $40-billion investment by Shell into LNG export capacity in British Columbia. Part of that project and the reason it went forward and was approved by the federal government was that LNG Canada was not subject to the carbon tax. Therefore, I am sick and tired of hearing the Liberals talk all day long about the benefit of the carbon tax, but when it comes to a major investment, they say that it does not need to pay the carbon tax.

Why the discrepancy?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about LNG Canada, one of the main actions the federal government did was to invest in moving that project from gas-powered boilers to electric boilers, which vastly reduces the emissions from that project.

We absolutely need to look at ways where we can continue to strengthen the output-based pricing system. One of the things we need to look at going forward is locking in those prices down the road, so we do not have a government come in and roll back that action.

One of the ways we can do that is by bringing in carbon contracts for differences, where those companies know that the price on pollution is going to rise to what we say it is going to, so they do not delay those investments that we need to see taking place to reduce their emissions.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to see if I can go two for two and maybe find some common ground with the Liberal members on the other side.

Earlier, we heard the Conservative member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman agree that big polluters should pay for orphan oil wells that were left all across the west coast and the Prairies. Therefore, I am standing here today to see if we might be able to find concurrence in the House.

Would the hon. member agree with the NDP and the Conservatives that big oil and gas companies, which are downloading a billion dollars of liability onto municipalities, must start paying for their pollution and their orphaned wells?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, big companies should be paying the price of the pollution they create. In fact, provinces right across the country need to strengthen the environmental bond system so that they have this money upfront, so we know it is not going to be downloaded onto communities and that they are going to subject to cleaning all of that up. I know important changes have happened throughout the country. One of the key ways we ensured that this was going to take place in Alberta with the energy sector was that part of the deal for the federal investment in cleaning up orphaned and inactive wells was for the Province of Alberta to commit to bringing in stronger environmental bonding and liability rules.

That this is absolutely key, because this should never be falling onto the public purse.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this morning, we have been debating the notorious carbon tax that does not apply in Quebec, but does apply elsewhere in Canada. I have heard many Liberal members, including my colleague across the aisle, say that one solution to help reduce gas and shipping costs is to switch to electric vehicles. We completely support such a transition. I am a huge supporter.

However, one thing that is frustrating for a lot of people is that when they go to the car dealerships, there are no electric vehicles available. I would like to know whether the government plans to take a stand on this and compel dealerships to make these vehicles available. At this time, clearly, something is not working. People are being forced to continue to use gas-powered cars even though they would like to make the switch.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. We must require dealerships to have electric cars on their lots. Quebec and British Columbia have this requirement.

The Government of Canada is now working towards introducing the requirement that all new vehicles be electric by 2035.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I entered politics and decided to run for the nomination within my riding because the government of the day's economic record was anemic. We had low growth in Canada, a high unemployment rate and we did not have a plan to move the economy forward. Just as important, there was no plan to deal with the issue at hand, which was climate change and how we would part and parcel work together to create a strong economy and also a healthy environment. They go and in hand.

In the global financial market, I saw the transition that was happening to deal with climate change, with new technologies and industries being created. I worked for over 20 years in New York, London and Toronto, and I saw companies moving toward that.

Our party put forward a plan to grow the middle class, strengthen it and assist those working hard to join the middle class. We created an environment for job creation and investments to raise the standard of living for all Canadians. To deal with the issue of climate change, we put forward a real plan on climate change.

That is what we did as a government. We put forward a plan that, over the long term, would lower emissions and get us to net-zero by 2050. A crucial element of that plan was pricing an externality, as we say in economic terms, and create pricing pollution. We put together that plan with applause from across the spectrum. When I use that term, I mean economist and policy-makers, whether they were on the right, the left or the centre. We were using a market system to price something and use those proceeds—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Marx wouldn't say that, by the way.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague and I stand on opposite sides of most things.

Our plan for pricing pollution is a realistic plan. During that time, Canada and Canadians have created literally millions of jobs. We have lifted hundreds of thousands of families and children out of poverty by implementing a number of measures. We created a strong economy not only for today but going into the future.

When it comes to the issue of affordability, and all members in the House know what their constituents have and are dealing with, we demonstrate empathy all the time in putting forward policy measures that assist Canadians. As a government, we brought forward the Canada child benefit, which is monthly and tax-free. We are not sending cheques to millionaires.

As a government, we returned the age of eligibility for old age security and GIS to 65 from 67. We brought in two tax cuts, one in our first term and the second one raising the basic personal expenditure amount, returning literally billions of dollars to Canadians. It is their money and they work hard for it. We are fiscal managers on that front. We brought in a 10% increase on the guaranteed income supplement.

We brought in a number of measures that assist Canadians currently, but also going into the future. Those measures assist Canadians and create an environment to create good jobs. We put in place an accelerated capital cost depreciation at a moment in time where Canadian companies could invest. We will continue to undertake those measures that create jobs, support investment and create a strong economy, not only for today but for our kids and future generations.

On the affordability front, we are working judiciously to ensure Canadians are assisted during this time where global inflation has taken afoot. We see it across the world. As a government, we have put forward a number of measures such as the Canada workers benefit, for which I argued for many years that we should introduce and strengthen. We strengthened it three times. We are also going to be strengthening it this year. It is there. Working Canadians can earn up to $2,400 more under the Canada workers benefit.

On day care, which is, for an economist, a great piece of policy, we signed accords with all 10 provinces for it to be introduced. This will be saving Canadian families literally thousands of dollars, before tax, which is a very important. It will save my family—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I apologize for interrupting. I am going to stop the clock. I want to remind members who are coming in for question period that somebody has the floor and is speaking. Therefore, I ask them to keep their voices down as they enter the chamber and have conversations with their colleagues in the House.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge has the floor.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know everybody is excited to get to question period, but they will first need to listen to this hon. member and then we can get there.

On the affordability front, we introduced a number of measures that will assist Canadians. It is great to see the GST credit being doubled for a period of six months for nearly 12 million Canadians. That is $2.5 billion. This will assist Canadians, especially at this specific period of time. We know Thanksgiving and Christmas are coming. These are important dates in all our calendars.

On the dental benefit, I said this yesterday in the House. As an MP, one encounters a lot of Canadians who are struggling, and it really pains me when I meet seniors who incur high dental bills because they do not have insurance. They are not covered under a private plan and were not fortunate enough to work under a union environment or in the public service, so they need to pay out of pocket. This program is the difference between them putting food on the table for the month or having to pay their dental bill. It will be a promise made and a promise kept by our government. We will come forth with a robust agreement on coverage of dental care.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have four and a half minutes to finish his speech after question period.

Again I want to remind members that the House is in session, and if they wish to have conversations, they should maybe take them out into the lobby. For those who are entering, please enter quietly.

Humanitarian Organizations

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I witnessed recently in Pakistan was truly heartbreaking. More than 1,500 people had died in catastrophic flooding. From my vantage point in a helicopter over Sindh province, all the roads and thousands of acres of crops were under water. In one of the most affected areas, we met with the wonderful, experienced staff of Canada’s humanitarian partner organizations working on the ground.

Last year British Columbia suffered unprecedented flooding. In the last few days, Atlantic Canada and Quebec have just been devastated by a storm of unprecedented ferocity. Whether it was the floods last year in British Columbia, the floods this year in Pakistan or the devastation caused by Fiona, it is heartwarming to know that Canadians, their governments and their outstanding humanitarian organizations are always there to help.