Debates of Sept. 28th, 2023

Motions in Amendment

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Safety

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Public Safety was appointed to cabinet about two months ago, so my question is whether he has received his mandate letter yet from the Prime Minister. Particularly, if he has received the mandate letter, could he provide the House with an update on the status of the amnesty for firearms and whether it is in place until October 30?

I know there are a lot of folks across the country who are impacted by this. There is a lot interest from different advocacy groups about what is going to happen on October 30: whether there is going to be a buyback program in place by then and whether the amnesty is going to be extended. There are a lot of folks from different groups who just really want to get some understanding on whether the Prime Minister's Office has given the new public safety minister a mandate letter, and whether that mandate letter has provided a little more clear direction on what the minister should be doing with regard to the October 30 deadline, which is quickly approaching.

I know this is something that, probably regardless of political stripe, a lot of folks are getting communications on in their offices, inquiries both from constituency groups and from different advocacy groups on all sides of the firearms debate. I was hoping the minister could provide an update on whether he has received his mandate letter. Broadly speaking, I think that is of interest to the House. Also, could he provide an update on the status of the October 30 amnesty as well as the status of the buyback program?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, the new Minister of Public Safety is working hard with colleagues and critics across this House to discuss his portfolio and is meeting with the Prime Minister in terms of his mandate.

However, it is important to note that when it comes to gun legislation in this country, Canadians have sent a very clear message that we expect to take off the streets those dangerous assault rifles that were meant to do maximum harm and were never meant to be in the hands of people in our communities.

With that being said, we have heard many perspectives, including those from indigenous communities and from hunters who are reasonable gun owners who use weapons for the purposes of hunting or sport shooting. Therefore, we want to make sure that in the process, when it comes to any gun legislation, we are listening and considering, making sure that our gun legislation is balanced. Let us make no mistake: Canadians have made it very clear that dangerous assault weapons and handguns have no place in our society.

The government is working on the buyback program. We are still consulting to ensure that the rollout will provide the clarity that the member opposite is requesting. However, at the end of the day what is important for Canadians is safety on our streets, ensuring that dangerous weapons are not in the hands of criminals. Our priority is keeping communities safe. The details of the buyback program will come forward and we will ensure that Canadian communities are safe.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, admittedly, it is a little concerning to hear that the government is still consulting and working on the buyback program and does not have clear direction for the House, given that we are about 30 days out from the amnesty expiring. Even when talking about firearms coming off the street or whatever, we can have a whole policy discussion about firearms ownership in Canada, but at the end of the day this is really about timing.

We are now at 30 days away. We have not heard from the government with respect to whether the amnesty will be extended. I know that there are groups on all sides of the debate that are wondering if it is going to be extended. How does the government put in place a buyback program in a month? There needs to be a buyback program for retailers and for owners who obtained firearms legally.

Again, maybe my colleague opposite would just like to take a moment to clarify: Is the October 30 amnesty going to be extended; and is the buyback program going to be implemented before October 30?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise to me that Conservatives do not understand why consultation and having these conversations is important and why working with other orders of government and working with stakeholders is crucial to implementing policy that is effective. I do not share the pessimism that the member opposite has, when it comes to consultations to ensure that our policies are effective. The impact that we want to have in this country with this program is to create safer communities and get dangerous assault rifles off our streets.

Carbon Pricing

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in Adjournment Proceedings to have another go at a question I asked on May 30.

I talked about the fact that, when fully implemented, the carbon tax is going to be 41¢ a litre, and the Liberals have a new carbon tax in the guise of fuel regulation that will add another 17¢. GST, of course, is going to be added to both of those, bringing us up to 61¢. I pointed out that Canadians cannot afford an extra 61¢ on a litre of gasoline. This does not just affect Canadians who drive a car. This makes fuel for public transit more expensive and the vehicles that municipalities run more expensive.

However, the response was quite striking. The minister got up, and gave an entire answer talking about natural disasters, fires and floods, as if to say that Canadians have to pay this tax in order to stop hurricanes and forest fires. To bring that kind of political answer is just ridiculous. We have heard over and over again the claim that, if we oppose a tax on the basic necessities of life that all Canadians need, it is somehow our fault that devastating forest fires and deadly weather events happen, because we asked the question.

How high does the carbon tax have to be? At what point will we solve a century of forestry mismanagement and the mismanagement of culling pine-beetled trees that allowed for these tinderbox conditions to arise? If the carbon tax is the solution, how high will the tax have to go? It staggers the imagination, and it is deeply offensive to Canadians who cannot afford to live.

Rent has doubled. The down payment to buy a home has doubled. Mortgage payments have more than doubled. Groceries are out of control. The cost of heating a home is beyond what many Canadians can pay, and the new carbon taxes on fuel will add 61¢ a litre. Canadians cannot afford these expenses.

Therefore, for the minister to get up and lecture me, lecture the opposition benches and, in so doing, lecture every Canadian who has to pay these taxes, really, telling them that it is their duty because this tax is responsible for stopping these catastrophic and complicated events. To trivialize such things as forest fires and wildfires by simply making it a matter of accepting a carbon tax is very disappointing.

I ask again: When will the government make life a little bit more affordable for Canadians and repeal these punitive taxes?

[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, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change this evening to talk about our plan to fight climate change and ensure affordability for Canadians.

Before I start, I spent the summer in my riding talking with my constituents and asking them how we can help more because things are expensive these days. When I was not meeting with my constituents and hearing from them, I was discussing the issues with economists, experts and researchers, and delving into the PBO report a bit. One thing I did not hear from any of my constituents this summer was that they would like us to do less to fight climate change.

Fighting climate change requires more than just one approach. Certainly, pricing carbon is a necessity. It has won a Nobel Prize in economics. I do not have a Nobel Prize in economics, and I do not know if my colleague opposite has a Nobel Prize in economics, but the gentleman who does, whose name is William Nordhaus, won it for demonstrating clearly that, if we want to fight climate change from an economic perspective, then market-based instruments such as carbon pricing are an absolute necessity.

With respect to what my colleague opposite referred to as trivializing a natural disaster, there is a scientific straight line drawn between burning more fossil fuels, emitting more carbon pollution and increasing heat in northern boreal forests and the prevalence, intensity and duration of forest fires. It is not something that really can be debated. Climate change is having an impact on the severity of these forest fires, and we just had the worst year on record. It goes hand in hand that we want to fight climate change because we want families to be safe in their homes all year round. We do not want to have to evacuate far northern communities for weeks on end for fear that climate change will ruin their community.

My colleague is right, that there are other ways to fight forest fires, such as through forest management strategies and having a better response to national disasters, but it does not change the fact that, if we want to fight climate change, then we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Canada's population is 0.5% of the global population, and we are responsible for 1.5% of global emissions. Simple math tells us that, as a result, individuals in Canada create three times as much pollution as the global average. That should tell any Canadian something, which is that we have work to do as Canadians. We should be stewards of the environment and the climate. Every young person who I meet within my riding, or in Alberta, as I spent some time in Alberta this summer, want us to focus on fighting climate change.

Unfortunately, all day today we did not hear any ideas from Conservatives other than they would axe the tax. That is their strategy. That is their new bumper sticker. That is the new T-shirt the member for Carleton goes around wearing. However, that is an irresponsible thing to say if they do not have an alternative, because the Conservatives have not put forth a plan to fight climate change or reduce our emissions. Instead, they use vague terms such as “technology”.

I have a question for my colleague. I hope he will indulge me. I have done my best by not reading my notes and listening intently to the member's speech. In an alternative universe, back in 2021, let us say that Erin O'Toole had won the election and the member opposite for Calgary Rocky Ridge was the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or perhaps the Minister of Transport. Would he follow through on his commitment that he ran on in 2021 to price carbon in Canada?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, after the next election, when we are on the other side, if the member is re-elected, he will have an opportunity to ask questions of a future Conservative government, but tonight is when opposition members ask questions of the government.

If I am to take the point the member made in his response, which was that we are not fighting climate change and that the carbon tax is a successful policy instrument in fighting climate change, I might be prepared to accept his full argument, but the carbon tax has not allowed for Canada to meet any of its emissions targets. We are not controlling emissions or reducing emissions through the carbon tax. All it does is make life more expensive for Canadians who cannot afford to eat, heat or buy groceries.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is actually not true. Canada's emissions have fallen, and Canada's emissions per GDP have fallen dramatically, in fact, and it is a result of action by this government. However, there is a lag period as well, because the previous government did almost nothing to fight climate change. It thought it was a big joke. The Harper government referred to the Kyoto protocol as a “socialist” regime.

We still have a long way to go in this country, but it is going to take a concerted effort on behalf of each member of Parliament to listen to people in their riding who are actually experts, economists, experts on affordability and experts on fighting climate change, to develop a strategy that works for all Canadians.

Back to the issue of affordability for just a second. I happened to have a look at the PBO report, and I noted the bottom three quintiles of earners in Alberta net more money through the climate action incentive payment than they pay. Those are the most vulnerable Canadians. Those are the people who need it most. They are getting more money back because the two top quintiles, the fourth and the fifth quintiles, burn more fossil fuels.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:33 p.m.)