Debates of Nov. 20th, 2023

Carbon Pricing

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise, following up on my question from a few weeks ago about the so-called carbon tax exemption being provided on home heating oil, which only 3% of Canadians are going to be able to enjoy, and only with the condition that it is for just three years. After the three years, everybody who is on home heating oil will have their carbon tax massively increased, which just so happens to be the timeline for the next federal election. This will be important for the question I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary. It drastically impacts the political fortunes of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a statement by an economics professor from the University of Calgary, who said the following: “In what can only be described as a cynical political move to grab regional votes, the Liberals have undermined their signature—and principled—cornerstone climate policy. They basically teed up the opposition comments for them. I fear and predict it all unravels from here.” This was from Professor Blake Shaffer, an associate professor in the Department of Economics and School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.

Another well-known Albertan, a professor from the University of Alberta, Trevor Tombe, says this: “The carbon tax is dead.” He goes on to explain why it is dead.

I want to draw the attention of the House, and also of my constituents, to this. My constituents are extremely worried. Their taxes have gone up massively. They are paying more on their mortgages, which have doubled. Rents have doubled. They are paying more on their natural gas bill, and for some it has more than doubled. There are many single-family detached homes in my riding, and on their natural gas bill, people are getting sticker shock month after month. We are heading into the winter months, and it is only getting worse. They will not get to enjoy a reprieve from the carbon tax; in fact, they are going to be paying more. Just like the people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, many of us use natural gas for our home heating. I note that the Saskatchewan government has now moved to stop the Saskatchewan crown corporation from passing on carbon tax revenues to the federal government. There is a great Yiddish proverb that says that you can't dance with two people when you have only one. There is another term that sounds way better in Yiddish, but it suggests that one cannot do two things at the same time.

The government claimed, during the carbon tax case, that it must proceed with a backstop on all provinces in Canada, and it must impose it. It has undermined its own legal argument that it made before the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Canada officials have made arguments that it must proceed with the carbon tax in this manner because any type of carve-out for home heating oil basically undermines the constitutionality now of the tax itself. In that case, the Supreme Court explicitly left open the possibility that regulations under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act could be unconstitutional, even if the act is constitutional, and that the act's being constitutional is largely based on this fact, its indivisibility of a minimum price on greenhouse gas pollutants.

Then it goes on. There are two more legal reasons why it has completely undermined the legal case to maintain the carbon tax with this latest carve-out. It is that it is political. A Liberal cabinet minister made the claim that the only reason that it is not applying to those in my home province of Alberta, and in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which do not have the reduction of the carbon tax temporarily, is that it is political.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Does he not then agree with the economics professors from my home province that his own government has completely undermined the case for the carbon tax and that it is hurting the people of Alberta?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer this question. To my friend and colleague from Calgary Shepard I say dziękuję bardzo. I know he is a member of Polish heritage. I spent lots of time in Poland and I love the country very much. I used to race over there on Lake Malta. It is nice.

Before I start my speech, I would like to correct the record, if I could. I believe the member opposite has mischaracterized Professor Tombe's position on carbon pricing, because very recently he came out in support of carbon pricing. He has suggested that Alberta produce a similar piece of legislation. A headline on a recent article from Trevor Tombe says, “How Alberta can benefit from a provincial carbon tax”. He believes, “Whatever your priorities, using carbon tax revenues to achieve them requires Alberta [to] take back control.” Alberta could and should take back control because of the opportunity that lies ahead with respect to renewable energies in that province.

We know that the Premier of Alberta has put a moratorium on the approval of new renewable energy projects in Alberta, which is a shame because Alberta is leading the country. It is an energy-rich province. Regardless of whether they come from the sun, underground or ideas above the ground, renewable resources from across the province are available. Unfortunately, the premier does not believe in renewable energy, but Canadians do. Albertans, Miltonians and Ontarians want us to address climate change.

I know that I have repeated this a number of times in the House, but it bears repeating again: All members from the Conservative Party ran on a promise to price carbon. Under Erin O'Toole, the Conservatives ran on a promise to develop a strategy to price carbon. It was a Zellers catalogue of green products that people could choose from. I believe “the more you burn, the more you earn” was the motto. I recognize that Canadians rejected that proposal. Canadians listed climate change and fighting it as one of their top priorities in the last federal election.

I would also note my friend the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills. During his leadership campaign for Conservative Party leader, he said very rightly that there is no way to win a federal election without having a plan to fight climate change. That is why, in his infinite wisdom, MP O'Toole ran on a promise to price carbon. My friend and colleague, the MP for Calgary Shepard, did also.

With the costs of climate change rising dramatically year over year, a climate plan to make life more affordable and fight climate change needs to be the cornerstone of any serious effort to make sure that Canadians can afford to heat their homes and make sure that we transition away from fossil fuels. If we ignore climate change, by 2025 we could see a $25-billion annual slowdown in our economic growth. Being somebody who is very attuned to the economy, my colleague opposite cares about economic growth. Our climate plan is not just about the environment; it is a plan for economic stability as well.

Another thing the Conservatives love to ignore about our climate plan and our carbon pricing mechanism is that it sends more money back to the vast majority of people. It is a choice of the Alberta government, the Ontario government and other governments to use the federal backstop program. Before 2018, Ontario, for example, had a cap and trade program whereby the provincial government traded carbon credits with other jurisdictions. It was able to generate considerable revenue from that. Given that the future of Alberta is a green one, I would urge my colleague and friend opposite to go to his premier and the ministers of energy and natural resources to encourage them to roll back their moratorium on renewable projects and pursue more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has not answered the substance of my question.

The moratorium that has been announced is based on an ASO technical report of experts, and 13 projects have been suspended. That is it, as for what has been impacted. This is also temporary.

I will draw the parliamentary secretary's attention back to the legal arguments that have been undone by the government. The carve-out is based on the source and type of fuel that people are using to heat their homes. In this case, it is heating oil. However, in the argument presented by the government before the Supreme Court of Canada, the indivisibility of the source of the pollutants was in question, so if they are all over Canada and we tax them all equally, it is constitutional. Because the government created this carve-out, it lends itself to the charge that now the tax is unconstitutional. The parliamentary secretary has not addressed this.

My constituents are still suffering from a higher carbon tax than Canadians have in Atlantic Canada. How can he consider that fair?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite acknowledged that this plan to change the way we price carbon with respect to home heating oil is specific to the product and not the region, which is what we have been saying. It is a national program.

I know that there are many Albertans and many folks who live in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia who still use home heating oil to heat their homes. Home heating oil is not just the most expensive way to heat one's home, it is also the most carbon intensive. It is a dirty product, and it is outdated. It is the way people used to heat their homes in the late 1800s. It is basically more similar to diesel and kerosene fuel than other products, which are far cleaner.

Saskatchewan is greening its grid. Alberta is greening its grid, and Manitoba already has one of the greenest grids. It is far more economic and sustainable to heat one's home with electric technology, such as a cold air heat pump, which is one that they would employ in Alberta. However, there are still many Albertans who are using home heating oil, and that is sort of the low-hanging fruit.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, after eight years, the socialist coalition's house of climate cards is collapsing. Courts have ruled much of this radical government's authoritarian agenda unconstitutional. It has been alarming to watch as this gang of socialists purge the small-l liberals from the deadnamed Liberal Party.

When the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that mass murderers do not deserve a single life sentence, I despaired that even our justice system had surrendered to radical woke ideology. However, somehow even this far left government found the limits of what Canadian courts would accept.

In just a few weeks, we have seen the Prime Minister admit his carbon tax is making life unaffordable for Canadians. The courts have struck down the Liberal law that claimed the federal government could impose its impact assessment on kids' lemonade stands. Now the courts have found the Liberals acted unconstitutionally when they declared plastics were toxic. What did this Prime Minister think would happen when he put a man who vandalizes the homes of premiers in cabinet?

The Roman emperors famously hired the vandals to provide security to the empire, only to have the eternal capital of Rome sacked. Our own self-styled Caesar thought he could bring the radical climate activists into his Liberal empire, only to have them lay siege to our Constitution. Now this self-confessed socialist and unrepentant vandal has promised Canadians he would resign rather than see any other Canadians get a break on their heating bills.

Tomorrow, senators will have a choice. They can choose to cut the carbon tax on the farmers who feed us, or they can reveal themselves as champagne-sipping socialists who sneer at hard-working Canadians. If they vote to lower food prices, the minister for climate radicalism will have to make a choice. Is he still the same hard-core, radical activist who was willing to repeatedly break the law in support of his principles, or has he become the prototypical arrogant Liberal who thinks he is indispensable? Only time and tomorrow's vote will tell.

While we do not know whether the radical, principled activist or the arrogant Liberal minister will show up tomorrow, we do know the Prime Minister is getting increasingly desperate, and a desperate Liberal is a dangerous Liberal. The Prime Minister would tear the country apart if he thought it would keep him in power. He has already dispatched his foot soldiers armed with worn out cliches. We saw this approach from the parliamentary secretary during my last adjournment debate.

The member for Milton claimed my videos were taken down from YouTube because of conspiracy theories. Any Canadian can still find all my videos on YouTube. I would encourage them to Google it, but that will not be an option in Canada much longer.

Only arrogant Liberals can accuse their opponents of holding nefarious hidden agendas while claiming we push conspiracy theories with a straight face. “Hidden agenda” is a Liberal dog whistle for progressive conspiracies. I have always been clear with Canadians.

There are no secret agendas or shadowy cabals when it comes to these Liberals. They are not hiding anything. The radical environment minister does not hide his plans with the communists who control China. He posts them online and promotes them in the press. The minister is not hiding his socialism; he admits it openly and proudly. Socialists have been appropriating climate change to decolonize capitalism. The Prime Minister's radical socialist agenda is not worth the cost.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I will not for a second apologize for stating the facts and the truth in the House of Commons, which are fully ratified by Canadian media sources. I have them all in front of me here. One does not have to go very far to find the conspiracy theories that the member has been peddling for over two decades in the House of Commons. I have one here where she did backflips to attempt to apologize for an anti-gay remark she made in the House. There was another time when the MP compared abortion to an Iraq beheading. The list goes on of when the member peddled deranged conspiracy theories about the Liberals.

I will read from this article in which the Conservative member was promoting deranged conspiracy theories akin to those promulgated by supporters of former U.S. president Donald Trump. In the video, the member said that Liberals have become radicals who want to make all illicit drugs legal and to normalize sexual activity with children. This is not something I am making up. This is in, as the member would describe it, the mainstream media, which I guess, as she said, is her enemy. In fact, media is so important to the discourse of the Canadian dialogue and making sure that Canadians have access to good information.

When the member compared Liberals to cultural Marxists that have taken over every university administration and said we are trying to silence free speech on campuses, it could not be further from the truth. She also said there has been this great reset. She has propagated false narratives, conspiracy theories and misinformation on her much-beloved YouTube channel about the elites trying to pursue a great reset through a green new deal. This green new deal has become a code for conspiracy theorists, who see it as a plot by some global elite group to replace capitalism with a new socialist world order.

For two decades, the member has been going to the lowest common denominator possible to try to earn support from fringe people in our country. It does a disservice to the discourse of the House. I will not apologize for a second for pointing it out, when it has been derogatory, homophobic and, frankly, completely unbecoming of anybody who pursues democracy and collaboration in this place.

To the question, low- and middle-income households in Canada are struggling financially right now. We are here to support them, as we have been since we were elected. The poverty rate in Canada was upward of 14% or 15% in this country in 2015, and Canadians were struggling as they never had before, with rising inequality and stagnant growth under 10 years of Stephen Harper. Since then, we have been there every step of the way through programs such as enhanced old age security, the Canada child benefit, child care and dental care for low- and middle-income Canadians. We believe in meeting the moment and making sure that low- and middle-income Canadians have the services and supports they need in order to succeed.

Recently, we announced new funding to help Canadians move away from home heating oil. Many of my colleague's neighbours in Renfrew still use home heating oil. It continues to be the most expensive, the dirtiest and the most emissions-intensive way to heat families' homes, and we want to help them get a free heat pump. We want to support them in getting heat pumps, so they can heat their homes with electricity. In Ontario, our grid is almost 85% clean. This means that the energy being provided to our grid is mostly from renewables, whether from hydroelectric, nuclear, wind or solar energy. I know that the member's neighbours in Renfrew are grateful for that program.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, only a Liberal could claim that he is reducing carbon dioxide emissions while emitting carbon dioxide with every word he speaks. I pity the poor parliamentary secretary, who is forced to stand there and claim that black is white, that plastics are toxic and that the air we exhale from our lungs is pollution.

We know emissions have gone up under the NDP-Liberal government. The government knows it too. It knows Canadians in rural and remote communities have no alternatives to reduce carbon emissions. While some Canadians are privileged enough to be able to afford to sit on a two-year wait-list for an electric vehicle, if rural Canadians cannot drive, they do not work. If they cannot purchase a car because of a Soviet-style sales quota, they have no way of getting to the doctor's office.

The price of climate socialism is unaffordable, and the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this Trump-style, Republican brand of politics that the member is bringing to this House is unwelcomed by members from almost all parties. It is a shame that there are still remnants of the Canadian Alliance Party in this House. There is absolutely no space in this House for this kind of overblown conspiracy theory. This is the third time in as many weeks that I have heard a member from the Conservative Party refer to programs, which are there to support our neighbours, as “Soviet-style”.

My mother escaped Soviet Hungary to come to this country to find freedom, and now she builds non-profit community housing, co-ops, for Canadians. She has been working in that sector for 30 years. The number of times the Conservatives have used the term “Soviet” to describe anything in terms of social welfare and making sure lower- and middle-income families have what they need is absolutely repulsive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:40 p.m.)