Debates of June 1st, 2023

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Conservatives losing an election. What I think is important, for anyone who is following the debate today, and we have heard it in questions and comments, and during question period, is the fact that 338 candidates in the last federal election, who were all Conservative candidates, had a platform, a platform that my friend and colleague tried to table earlier today, which made it very clear that they were campaigning in favour of a price on pollution. I am wondering if he could just discuss that a little more, the details and his perception of that particular promise.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true. They might disagree with it now, and to the defence of one member of the Conservative Party, she, of the numerous times I have asked that question, was the one member who stood up and said she disagreed with the policy they ran on in 2021. I will hand it to that one member. I will not call her out by name right now because I do not want her to receive any emails to her office to that effect, but every other Conservative we asked the question of just completely skated around it. At least they could stand up to say they ran on it in 2021, it was part of their platform and it was a price on pollution, but now they have changed their mind.

That would be so much more honourable than just trying to avoid answering the question every time. I did try to table that platform, as the parliamentary secretary said. I tried to table the 2021 and 2008 platforms, in which they talk about pricing pollution, in the House before question period. Do members know who yelled out no to that, not letting me table them? It was Conservatives. They would not let me table their own platforms.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, being an old hockey guy, I always appreciate the fourth line grinder doing their role and doing what they have to do to make sure they are part of a team, and I appreciate that member's ability to stand on his feet to talk about nothing for 20 minutes. It is fantastic, and I think he has a certain amount of skill at that. He has found his role on his team, and I do not begrudge him that, because he has that kind of talent.

I do have a simple question. I know the member talks about our platforms from the last couple campaigns a lot. The Liberal platform promised not to raise the carbon tax to more than $50 a tonne, ever. I am wondering how he goes back to his constituents and rights that ship when he made that promise to them while door knocking. I would also like to hear an answer on that. I appreciate his fourth line talent.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer it, and I think I have already answered it to that member and other Conservatives.

The policy changed. It is different now than it was then. Can members see how easy it was for me to directly answer the question? It may have been a position we had at one time, and now the position is different, but we are honest and open with Canadians about that. The question is why that member and other Conservatives will not be honest and open with Canadians about how their position has changed on climate change.

We will note that the member complimented me, in some form I guess, by saying I spoke about nothing. He is a Conservative who comes from a party where 54% of its base says climate change is not real, and he is a Conservative who shares the same side of the aisle as the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who talked about climate change two days ago as though it were just something that happens every 10,000 years, as though there is nothing to see here. Only a Conservative who shares that space would refer to my dire plea to do something about global warming and climate change as me talking about nothing.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, something I find infuriating about the motion, and we see have seen this every time in the various versions of the same motion coming to the floor of the House from the Conservative Party, is that it never mentions the profits of oil and gas companies. The price on pollution went up 2¢ a litre in the last year. Wholesale margins, profits of the largest oil and gas companies across the country, went up 18¢ a litre.

Why is it that the Conservative Party is not talking about this? To go further, does the member support a windfall profit tax? We could use those funds to invest in the climate solutions we need.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do not talk about it because that is who their base is. That is who donates to them. When they put forward 10 motions about getting rid of the carbon tax, that is who they are targeting with those motions. When the Leader of the Opposition comes in here to speak to that issue, clips it afterward and puts it out there in an email blast, he is talking to those people. That is why they will not talk about it.

To the member's other question about a windfall tax, I think it is a very good discussion to have. I am completely open to it. I think we need to look at absolutely every possible solution to fight climate change, and I am more than willing to work with my colleague and other members of the House to see how we can go about doing that.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will ask the parliamentary secretary the exact same question I asked the parliamentary secretary sitting beside him just a little while ago in the debate, which he did not answer.

How many trees have been planted by the Liberal government under its promised two billion tree program? Once we get that number, could the parliamentary secretary explain why the program is so bureaucratic and difficult for communities, ridings, counties and conservation groups to even apply and qualify for it? I ask because I think this program is a good idea. We should be planting more trees right across this great country we have, but nobody can seem to qualify for the program, and the trees are not getting planted.

My final comment is that the parliamentary secretary may want to tell the Minister of Public Safety of the parliamentary secretary's role and position. The Minister of Public Safety yesterday in the Senate did not even know the position existed here in the House of Commons.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start with the latter comment and come to the beginning.

The Minister of Public Safety was responding to Senator Plett's comment about me being a parliamentary secretary to the leader in the Senate, which I am not. I am the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. That is to correct the first error he made.

Second, I will answer the member's question the exact same way that my parliamentary secretary colleague did. I was here and heard the whole thing. He started off by saying he found it very hypocritical that the member would challenge us on a platform commitment that we have only partially delivered on, given the fact that the member ran on putting a price on pollution and is somehow oblivious to that fact now. He does not think it is necessary to answer for that while he makes these demands, and that is hypocritical.

To the other point, which is what my parliamentary secretary colleague said specifically, does the member not realize that if we plant that many trees, we are not going to do it all at once? It is not a linear graph. It is going to happen exponentially. Does the member realize that to create that many trees, we have to start with a seedling? The seedling has to be properly germinated and turned into a tree to get to the point where we can actually plant it. I cannot believe I am actually having this high school science discussion with the member, but it is the reality of how trees grow.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, given that we are talking about the environment, I wanted to highlight one thing that I know my friend is very much in tune with. It is the idea of batteries.

We have seen the Volkswagen investment, with the types of green jobs that are going to be there going forward. The government is assisting on that, working with other jurisdictions, investing in Canadians and building a healthier, stronger, greener economy. I know the member has further ideas, locally, that he has been advocating for very strongly.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the future is in electrification. That is where it is going to be. There is a transition happening before us, and there is nothing the Conservatives can do or say to change that.

The real question is, where is Canada going to be in that regard? Are we going to be leading at the forefront of it so that we can export our technology and become prosperous as a result? Or are we going to wait until every other country has done it and buy the technology off them?

This government has set us up in such a way that we can bring investments into Canada early on. We are taking a measurable risk on that by investing in companies and letting them establish in Canada and build their roots here. However, we will become the exporters of that technology throughout the world. That is leadership. That is what the government has been doing.

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

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, following the member's multiple requests today for unanimous consent to table the Conservatives' platform for two election campaigns, I am requesting unanimous consent to table the Liberal Party's fiscal plan from the 2015 campaign.

It says, “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.”

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

We need to start today with a bit of history. There is an expression that says those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. That appears to be true of the government, which has never met a tax it did not want to increase.

The Liberal government first introduced its clean fuel standard in 2016. The effect on Canadians was noticeable. Some lower- and middle-income homeowners found it difficult to heat their homes due to the price increases associated with this standard. In effect, it was a tax on those who could least afford to pay it.

Three years ago, the Department of the Environment put the direct costs of the clean fuel standard on Canadian households at $2.4 billion, and I am sure it is way more now. The Liberal-NDP plan for the environment is not designed to combat climate change. It is a plan to increase taxes.

The clean fuel regulations require liquid fossil fuel producers to gradually reduce the carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel they produce and sell for use in Canada. That is a worthy goal, but what happens to producers that do not meet that standard? They will be taxed. What will they do when they are taxed? They will pass the tax on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, which the Liberals do not mind because then they can add more taxes to the higher prices.

With inflation already at historic levels, this new clean fuel regulations tax is a tax that Canadians do not need. Giving more money to the Liberals to help them mismanage the Canadian economy and the federal budget is not the way to fight climate change.

After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians have seen their lives become more unaffordable thanks to the inflationary carbon tax. Now the Liberals are bringing in a second carbon tax. Do they not understand that they are making life unaffordable? Do they not understand that people are struggling to make ends meet and that adding to that tax burden makes things worse, not better?

I can see the looks on the faces of the Liberals. It is not hard to tell what they are thinking as I say this. I know what their questions will be when I finish speaking. They are going to ask me why I did not mention that their government is offering Canadians a carbon tax rebate, and whether I understand that the carbon tax does not really cost anyone any more. If that is the case, why have it at all?

The truth is that the carbon tax is not offset by carbon tax rebates. It is a source of government revenue, just like any other tax. My Liberal friends do not want to admit that they find it better to live in a dream world than admit their taxes are hurting the people they are supposed to serve.

They do not want to hear about the numbers the Parliamentary Budget Officer has given us. They do not want to talk about how their first carbon tax is going to cost the average Canadian family $710 this year after taking their rebate into account. They would prefer that I did not mention that once the second carbon tax is fully implemented, the cost to the average Canadian family after rebates will increase to $1,160 annually.

Let us talk about the true cost of carbon taxes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household an extra $573 per year without any rebate, with families in some provinces facing costs as high as $1,157. Both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000 for each family depending on the province in which they live. The combined impact of the two Liberal carbon taxes will be an extra 61¢ for every litre of gasoline at the pumps.

If the government was interested in economic growth, it would scrap the new tax and the existing carbon tax. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the effect of the clean fuel regulations and the existing carbon tax will not help grow the economy but rather will shrink it. That is not what Canadians want from the government's policies.

I have heard the Liberals' argument. They whine that the Parliamentary Budget officer was not being fair to them and that the PBO only took the numbers into account when making his calculations. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has complained that the PBO has not taken into account the technological change the clean fuel regulations will help promote. I would love to hear about those changes from the minister. What new technologies have been developed as a direct result of this tax? My guess is the minister does not understand that taxes do not stimulate invention.

If he wants new technologies, perhaps his government should try to encourage a climate where businesses and individuals are free to innovate. However, do not ask the PBO to calculate the benefits to the economy of some imaginary technology. That makes no sense. Perhaps in some Liberal fantasyland carbon rebates and carbon taxes balance themselves, just as budgets do. In the real world, these taxes hurt Canadians and provide no benefit to the economy or ecology of the country.

Simply put, a tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue imposed on taxpayers in order to fund government spending. That is what the clean fuel regulations are for. They are to fund government spending. They have nothing to do with combatting climate change.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP allies appear to be blinded by ideology and uncaring as to the needs of Canadians. It is ludicrous to continually raise taxes at a time of high inflation and when grocery prices are soaring and Canadians are finding it difficult to make ends meet. The government is apparently determined to push through this tax no matter who it hurts. The reality is that the Liberal government's policies are fuelling inflation and making people poorer, which is why one in five Canadians is skipping meals and food banks are seeing record demand.

The Liberals have no plan that will actually help Canada reduce its carbon footprint. The objective is to fund never-ending Liberal deficits. This scheme will only hurt our economy, discourage investment and increase the cost of everything in a Canadian household.

As a Conservative, I oppose this tax and the burden it places on Canadian families. This is not the way to fight climate change. The way to fight climate change is through innovative technologies and harnessing Canadian brainpower, not through increased taxes. A Conservative government will govern with fiscal responsibility, axe these taxes and bring home affordability for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in the next federal election, we are going to see Conservatives in British Columbia saying that they are going to get rid of what they call the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, when in fact in reality there is no federal price on pollution in the province of B.C. They are going to intentionally mislead the residents of B.C.

Are the Conservatives going to compensate the people of B.C. if they get rid of the price on pollution in Canada? They are not paying for it right now; it is being done through the provincial government. Are they going to take the money away from the province and give it to the people? How are they going to deal with the sense of equity and fairness among the residents to B.C. if they cancel the national price on pollution?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we believe that we should not impose things on the provinces, as the government is doing to Alberta specifically. We will not interfere with the way British Columbia is doing its business now.

As for the calculation the member is speaking about, reason and logic tell us that if something does not work we should not repeat it. This carbon tax does not work. This carbon tax is not reducing emissions. It has clearly become a tax rather than a climate solution. That is why when we bring our own proposal to Canadians, our own platform, it will be based on logic and on solutions that are going to make a difference, reduce emissions and help reduce the effects of climate change.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, cutting the price on pollution is not a solution that will stop pollution. Oil and gas companies are among the corporations that are showing the greatest profits. Why do the Conservatives prefer stacking the deck for billionaire CEOs over helping working people in Canada?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the arguments of the NDP always have no relation to the economy or business whatsoever. What we are proposing here today is to get this tax out of the way and save Canadians money and make their life much easier. That is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan when they tax people to make them change behaviour, the way the current government is doing.

While that is not doing the job and while this is not really helping to reduce emissions, we have to stop and think again, based on reason and based on logic. When we think that way, we can make a difference; otherwise, we are just having an argument that leads nowhere.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting to ask a question, but I have one all the same.

My colleague is complaining about the fact that there are regulations on clean fuels. Here, he seems to take offence at the fact that a producer who does not comply with the regulations will be taxed.

When I speed or fail to obey the law, I get a ticket. What should be done with producers who breach the standards? Do we give them a pat on the back and tell them to do better next time, or do we tax them?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it does not seem that Quebec has this problem to begin with, so I am not sure where the Bloc Québécois is coming from on this specific point. I am not suggesting, and I have not suggested ever, that we should really allow corporations or anyone to do whatever they want. We have to work with everyone. That is why I spoke about technologies. That is why I spoke about innovation. Those are going to be done only with businesses that they know better and with us, to make sure we remove any red tape and the gatekeepers from their way so they can do their job. At the end of the day, we are all Canadians and we all have to work with each other to achieve a worthy goal.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Edmonton Manning knows there is no second carbon tax.

I want to ask specifically about what he has been talking about, which is the economics of the climate crisis. We used to talk about the future costs of inaction. Right now in this country, we have 179 wildfires in multiple provinces across the country. Does the member know the cost of climate-induced wildfires and floods from just the last year alone?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, while the hon. member is asking me, he should ask the government if the government knows. The government members are not giving any information on anything. They just keep hiding in secrecy.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on our opposition motion today, calling for the scrapping of the first carbon tax and scrapping the second carbon tax as well to put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

I want to talk about the current state of affairs in our country. I got a disturbing text from someone I have known for a long time about how he sees what is happening in our country right now. He said, “This country is basically parts of the Titanic sliding into the abyss of the Atlantic. Five years ago, we would not recognize the country we have today. I shudder to think what we will think of the country that we will become in 2028.” This is from a hard-working gentleman who has worked his whole life, and created a good life for his friends and family.

He sees this country as continuously going in the wrong direction. He wonders when people in this chamber are actually going to stand up for Canadians and talk from a passionate point of view of what hard-working, everyday Canadians see, which is our country going in the direction it is going. I am going to try and do that a bit today in the vein of our motion, and talk about taxes and what the tax is really trying to accomplish.

The first carbon tax that was implemented after the 2015 campaign was supposed to reduce emissions across our country. It was supposed to be an environmental policy. The problem with that is it has had no environmental effects on our country. Over the last eight years, the government has never hit an environmental target with its carbon tax or any of its other environmental policies.

When the Liberals flew around on a junket to COP and they were all eating caviar, it actually came out that Canada is the 58th country out of 63 countries for environmental targets. The Liberals never talk about that.

Let us talk about someone who is a hard-working Saskatchewanian. They are looking at their government that keeps asking them to pay more and more because it is going to be good for the environment eventually. This person sees there are no results. They then start to question whether this actually is an environmental policy at all or if it just a tax-and-grab, and the government just wanted to fill its coffers with more hard-earned dollars.

A government has never actually earned a dollar. The only way the government gets money is by taking it from someone who earned it in the first place, like through work or investment. The government gets it through taxing the hard-working people. The government does not earn anything itself. It takes and then it gives back with the other hand.

That is the other argument on the carbon tax that our Liberal friends and NDP socialist friends put forward, which is saying it is revenue neutral. They have been saying this for years. The Liberals and the NDP have been saying it is revenue neutral. I have never in my life seen a government program run on a revenue-neutral basis.

Canadians never get back what they put in when they give to the government. It goes to the government, it goes to the department, it goes through many different hands and then out the other end comes much less than what Canadians gave to the government in the first place. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came out and said it has been saying this since 2015.

Before that, I remember that Premier Wall said there is no such thing as a revenue-neutral government program, and he was right. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came out and said there is no way eight of 10 Canadians are getting back more from the carbon tax than they are paying.

It is not revenue neutral. It has had none of the desired environmental effects that it was supposed to have by making Canadians pay more for everything. Then the Liberals say it is a market mechanism. The NDP members are okay. They just want to take more money from people who have earned it. Socialists always believe the government can spend money better than the person who earned it anyway. We will never feel that way.

Some Liberals are saying it is a market mechanism and they will put in policies that will make people act differently. In my province, where I come from, it is very hard to act differently when planting in fields or harvesting. There are limited options for harvesters, and many of them will continue to run on fossil fuels.

We cannot implement a government policy that would make that process of planting, seeding and harvesting run differently, because we have to use fuel in the machines. Maybe a generation from now, there might be the capacity for electric combines and tractors. I would like to see that technology, if it ever happens, but it is very far away. So for a government to implement a policy, which it knows would adversely affect the agriculture sector, adversely affect the oil and gas sector, because there are no other technological options right now, is, quite frankly, dishonest.

The government cannot say that this is going to be a fair tax, because it does hit provinces in our country differently. For example, the carbon tax 2 that we have talked about in the last couple of days is going to cost Saskatchewan people $1,117 net for a family. If we add carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2 on what a Saskatchewan family is going to have to pay, it will be $2,840 more this year alone. A lot of people may say, “What's $2,800?”, but to some families that is grocery bills and new shoes for their kids. A lot of families could use that extra $2,800.

These are not families who are not trying to be environmentally friendly. In Saskatchewan and Regina—Lewvan, people have to heat their homes when it comes to wintertime as it is pretty cold and in July, it gets pretty hot and so people have to cool off their homes. There are no options. When a government comes forward and says that it is going to change the behaviour of Canadians with this policy, there are just some behaviours that we are going to have to continue to hold onto, such as driving the kids to hockey or school. Rural Saskatchewan is a big place, and there are not many options other than to drive. We cannot get an Uber in rural Saskatchewan. There is no bus service. We need a vehicle and we need to drive.

This is why we stand and talk about the carbon tax and lay out some of the arguments, which my fellow Liberals and NDP members will throw back at me. This is why some of the people I represent feel a little jaded when it comes to this government's policies. They feel, over the last eight years, that they have really been left behind in western Canada. It is getting tougher and tougher for people to see anything left from a paycheque at the end of the month; heck, even halfway through the month some people run out of their paycheque.

A lot of people have probably been to the lobby day on the Hill when the food banks across Canada were here. I had an opportunity to talk to the food bank CEO from Regina, and some of the numbers are staggering. They call them “points of service” when people come in to get food. In Regina, last year, there were 120,375 points of service, which is a lot of people coming to get food in a city the size of Regina. This year, there were 171,451, which is a number, but these are people and these are families. That is a 42% increase.

When we hear about the budget being so good, that we have never had it so good and that Canada is at the top of the G7 in numbers for debt-to-GDP ratio, it does not really sink home. A lot of people are asking: If the country is in such good shape and if the country has so much money, why is there not more money in the pockets of Canadians? Why do they not have more money to make it to the end of the month if the government is doing so well?

I think that is a question that my Liberal colleagues and their junior partners in the NDP cannot answer. They stand up day in and day out, such as the finance minister, talking about how good it is in Canada and how everyone should be happy. Except that one in five Canadians are skipping meals. There are 1.5 million people using the food bank every month. Food bank usage in Regina has gone up 42%. There are students who are literally sleeping on couches because they cannot afford rent. That does not sound like a country that is doing very well.

So, when we say that we should scrap the carbon tax 1 and the carbon tax 2, it is on behalf of our constituents that we rise up and talk about these issues and why we think they deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. At the end of the day, if the policy is not working, it is literally the definition of insanity to keep on increasing it, doing the same thing and getting the same result.

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

Madam Speaker, I will pay the member the same compliment he paid me, which is that he is very well versed. He knows how to get up, stand on his feet and speak to a topic for an extended period of time, and I appreciated him doing that today.

I have heard the member talk a few times in the past about the decrease in GHG emissions in Canada. Between 2019 and 2021, Canada actually decreased more of them, as a percentage, than five out of the other six G7 countries. However, he always comes back to that and says there was a pandemic then. Unfortunately for that argument, since the pandemic, our economy has continued to grow and we are still seeing those reductions. Can he explain how the economy can grow and the pandemic can shrink them at the same time?