Debates of March 19th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

Madam Speaker, I always kind of question the government's budgetary choices—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan seem to want to go back and forth. As I said, it is not the appropriate time. I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to hear the question that is being asked of him so that he will be able to answer it. Again, if individuals have questions and comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is really about questioning the government's choices. There are a lot of things I do not understand about this country, but let us just focus on the Liberal government's budgetary choices.

There is a homelessness crisis going on right now. It has been going on in Quebec for five years. In fact, since the federal government launched the national housing strategy, homelessness in Quebec has doubled. There is also homelessness in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. This is really serious. There is only one federal program that deals with homelessness, and that is the Reaching Home program. Now we have learned that the program will be cut by 3% for the next two years. This 3% cut seems crazy to us. It seems like the Liberals want to show the Conservatives that they are capable of fiscal restraint, so they are making cuts all over the place, including to services for the homeless.

Recent budgets announced $83 billion in tax credits for oil companies by 2035, and yet services for the homeless are being cut by 3%. I would like my colleague to explain that to me.

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

Madam Speaker, if the member is concerned about homelessness and initiatives this government has put forward, I would encourage him to not be tempted into voting against all the opposed items the Conservatives will be putting up. As I indicated, two of them, the Reaching Home program to address homelessness and the Canada housing benefit, are on the chopping block as a result of the opposed items the Leader of the Opposition has put forward.

The reality of the situation is that, while he says we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, we have phased out the fossil fuel subsidies. The only way we continue to subsidize, in any way, the fossil fuel industry is to help to deal with abandoned orphan oil wells. That member might that think that it is not our problem, because they were companies from 50 years ago. We should leave the wells there, and that would be the end of that. Unfortunately, governments at the time did not think it was good to ensure that the proper money was in place to deal with those wells later on, so now society has to pick up the tab. That is the unfortunate reality. However, it is something that we have to do in our environmental interests.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to talk about going well beyond subsidies. We know that in Great Britain they had an excess profit tax on oil and gas; that is the Conservatives in Britain. We cannot even get Liberals to do that. Right now, the Liberals have ended the Canada greener homes loan program. I have constituents who want to access that program. I have contractors saying they are going to have to lay people because they were employing people and were supporting Canadians who wanted to do the right thing.

My questions to my colleague are these: Will they charge an excess profit tax on oil and gas? Will they not just fund the greener homes loan program but also actually provide it with the necessary resources to make it through a full budget cycle so that all Canadians can access it?

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

Madam Speaker, if the member for the NDP brought forward an opposition motion that we charge an excess profit tax on the oil and gas industry, I would vote for it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to the important issue of a price on pollution and the carbon rebate.

I want to take a bit of a different angle on just how isolated the Conservative Party of Canada is today. When we look at the issue of a price on pollution, we will find it actually originates in 2015 in Paris, where the world came together and said not only that climate is change real but also that we need to take a policy direction around the world to try to limit the amount of emissions and ultimately reduce them so we would have a better environment worldwide.

What we have witnessed over the years is a high level of participation from countries around the world. For example, the European Union, which is made up of many different countries, including France, Italy and so many others, came up with the green deal, which in essence is about a price on pollution. We can also look at countries like Ireland, England and Mexico. We often say that the United States does not have a price on pollution, but that is not quite accurate because there are many American states that do.

Not only does Canada have a national price on pollution, but the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec also have a price on pollution. In the House of Commons today, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party are in favour of a price on pollution. We used to have a Conservative leader, Erin O'Toole, who was in favour of a price on pollution. Then we have to factor in where the Conservative Party is today. The Conservatives have isolated themselves to say that they do not support a price on pollution, even though under their former leader Erin O'Toole, in that policy platform, all the Conservatives, including the current leader, advanced, promoted and encouraged a price on pollution. It is in their platform.

What we have witnessed since the new leader was minted not that long ago is that the far right element of the Conservative Party has taken control. The whole idea of the MAGA Conservatives has taken control through the leadership of the Conservative Party today. Because of that, Conservatives have changed their mind. They now say they are not in favour of a price on pollution. The world is changing and is recognizing the importance of a sound policy decision, but an irresponsible Conservative Party today is saying no to a price on pollution.

England today is saying to countries around that world that if they are going to be exporting products to England and do not have a mechanism for a price on pollution, they are going to have to pay additional fees on that merchandise going into England. That is something it is acting on and is going to be putting into place. What does the Conservative Party really think about a price on pollution and the impact that will have on trade?

We saw that with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, where Conservatives were prepared to use it as their sole issue as part of the rationale for opposing the Canada-Ukraine agreement, because there was reference to a price on pollution. It was not always their sole issue but was their second issue. If we think about it, Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Ukraine wants to be able to have a formal trade agreement with the European Union, which also has a price on pollution.

However, the Conservative leadership and the members across the way have closed their eyes like an ostrich, put their head in the sand and do not recognize good, sound policy. I can say that is not in the best interest of Canadians, just like it was not in the best interest of Canadians when the Conservative Party voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That is the reality. The statements and the policy direction of the Conservative Party, with the far right element, is to the detriment of good, sound public policy, which is going to be there for future generations of Canadians and others. Canada needs things such as trade agreements. We need international trade; that is a good thing.

The rest of the world is recognizing that the environment matters and that the price on pollution is an effective tool, but we have the leader of the official opposition going around saying he is going to get rid of the price on pollution. How backward-thinking is that when we contrast it to what the rest of the world is doing? That is not responsible public policy-making.

Instead, the Conservatives are more focused on developing a bumper sticker that they believe is going to get them votes. They believe they are going to be able to fool Canadians. That is the bottom line. They have no faith in Canadians' understanding the reality; we see that in what they are telling Canadians.

The question I had earlier today for the leader of the official opposition was this: Why does the Conservative Party not participate in political panels on CTV or CBC? Canadians still view those networks.

One member is saying, “No, they do not.”

Mr. Speaker, CTV and CBC would argue differently, and so would I. I think CTV and CBC have played a very important part in public debate for generations. The leader of the Conservative Party says they are state-operated organizations. How ridiculously stupid is it to make that sort of assertion? The leader says it not only here in the House; he says it outside the House also as he chooses to avoid true accountability on some of the stupid things he is saying, things that are absolutely misleading.

He will go to the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec and try to give the false impression that they have the same sort of carbon taxing system as Manitoba, Atlantic Canada, Alberta and others have. That is just not true. He tries to tell people in the provinces where there is a carbon tax, a federal backstop of a carbon tax, that they are paying far more into the carbon tax system than they are receiving.

Again, we have said very clearly, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out by his specific example, that a vast majority of people actually receive more money back from the rebate than they pay through carbon tax on gas and heating their homes. That is something the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made very clear. Over 80% of people will receive more dollars back than they will put directly into the carbon tax. That is indisputable. Members of all political parties, except for the Conservatives, are acknowledging that.

What does that mean? When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to axe the tax, it also means he is going to get rid of the rebates. When Conservatives talk about getting rid of the rebates, they are telling well over 80% of my constituents that they will have less disposal income because of that particular action. I find disgraceful what the leader of the official opposition is spreading across the country.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, Dan Kelly from the CFIB has recently said he was horrified to see the government's new plan with respect to rebates for small businesses. Small businesses actually bear most of the burden of the carbon tax but get almost nothing back. In fact, the government promised that they would get more than they are actually getting.

Does the member support improving the situation for small businesses or just letting them die on the vine?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is trying to change the narrative of what I said. I said that 80-plus per cent of the constituents I represent, and I emphasize the word “plus”, are getting more money back through the carbon rebate than they are paying in carbon tax. That is a fact. The member opposite, in asking the question, did not challenge that fact because, as he knows, it is the truth. However, the leader of the Conservative Party says he is going to cut the tax and cut the rebate. That means less disposable income for 80-plus per cent of the constituents I represent.

To me, that is very deceptive. That is why the Conservatives do not want to participate on political panels, because there is a higher sense of accountability than the garbage they are putting out through social media.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my colleagues from English Canada are aware that what we have been hearing in the House this morning is a ringing endorsement for Quebec sovereignty. In Quebec, we are concerned about fighting climate change. Our province has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, by the way, because we have taken action, because we rely on hydroelectricity and batteries.

This morning, we have been hearing two things. On the one hand, we hear that the government has been spending a lot of money for years and has the world's worst record. Canada has the worst record when it comes to fighting climate change, despite quite needlessly throwing billions of dollars out there, with help from the NDP, which supports the government most of the time. On the other hand, we have the Conservatives saying that they are going to do even less.

All Canadians are saying that no matter how much they spend or do not spend, they are getting nowhere. This is really a ringing endorsement for Quebec sovereignty. I hope that all Quebeckers are watching this debate today and taking note.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I hope that people in all regions of the country are taking note of the debate.

Manitoba, like Quebec, is a major investor in hydro and green energy. There are all sorts of opportunities in virtually every region of the country. Never before have we seen as much investment in greener jobs, and those greener jobs are going to translate in every region of the country. The federal government is providing incentives and encouraging that development. Quite frankly, I would challenge any member opposite to point to a government that has done more to support greener jobs in our economy in every way.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has spoken a lot about the disinformation that the Conservatives have been spreading, and I agree, but the Conservative member asked him a very fair question about small businesses.

We know that the federal government currently owes small businesses and indigenous groups $3.6 billion. Those are rebates that the government has promised small businesses, and they are still waiting. The government has also said it is going to give small businesses less because it has doubled the rebates for rural Canadians. Why would it make small businesses pay for that when we could be making big oil and gas pay for it? The output-based pricing system is unfair. Suncor pays 14 times less than an average Canadian does in carbon pricing. Why not make big oil pay what it owes?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that Canadians, as a whole, recognize the principle that the polluters need to pay. The government has recognized this and, ultimately, moving in very significant ways, has put a price on pollution. Today, it is oriented. We continued to go in the right direction on that matter in all aspects.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, in fact, on behalf of all the people of my great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is not a pleasure is what Justin Trudeau has done—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will remember that he is not to mention individuals who sit in the House of Commons by their names, no matter what position they have.

I am sure the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame will retract that and get back on track.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition and under the Prime Minister, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have seen their cost of living go right through the roof.

Now, the carbon cult plan is to raise the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. It is yet another in a long line of cruel April Fool's Day jokes that we are going to encounter until 2030, when the price on carbon reaches 61¢ a litre.

On Saturday, the Voice of the Common Man, known as VOCM to most people, had a poll. It showed that 90% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are against the April 1 increase in carbon tax of 23%. I guess people might wonder why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are so against the costly coalition's increase in carbon tax. It is simply because Newfoundland and Labrador's geographical area is very remote. Everything comes to Newfoundland by the use of fuel. Whether it is food, building supplies or even fuel, it arrives by fuel.

The fishing industry takes quite the hit, whether in terms of the processors that use fuel to cook the crab, the trucking companies that truck it or the fishermen who drive around and move their supplies. The carbon tax has quite the impact. It impacts the price the fishermen receive.

It impacts the mining industry. There is a mine in my riding that shut down, and one of the main reasons was the high cost of fuel.

It has a massive impact on the forestry industry and the tourism industry. People cannot afford to travel to Newfoundland and Labrador anymore.

The Speaker is very aware of how much it costs to get to Newfoundland and Labrador, as I know she has family connections in one of the great communities in my riding, Belleoram. The Speaker is well aware of the crippling effect of high fuel costs.

If it costs more for fishermen to harvest the fish or processors to process it, or for farmers to grow vegetables and wheat, or whatnot, and for truckers to truck those products to the grocery stores, which are paying more in energy bills, at the end of the day the consumer foots the bill.

Seventy per cent of Canadians are against this 23% increase in carbon tax, and seven Canadian premiers have come out against it. This includes the great supporter and childhood friend of the Prime Minister, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland, Andrew Furey, who just sent a letter to the Prime Minister, pleading with him to pause the increase. He said, “I respectfully request that you consider pausing the implementation of the April 1st carbon tax increase”.

We will see if he listens. All along, Premier Furey supported the carbon tax, but now he sees the light. Yet his good friend, the Prime Minister, consistently breaks the promise he made to Canadians to hold carbon pricing at $50 per tonne. The new goal, of course, is $170 a tonne.

Then there is the constant bragging that carbon tax is revenue-neutral. It is not. People do not have to take my word for it: The independent watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, says that Canadians will pay more in carbon tax than they receive in rebates. At the same time, the Liberal-NDP coalition has not met one single solitary climate change target, and it will not.

The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl continues to talk about the cold hard cash that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to find in their pockets. Increases such as the one coming on April 1, which lead to a total increase by 2030 of 61¢ a litre, are not putting cold hard cash in anybody's pockets. I will tell the House what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are finding cold: the temperatures in their homes. They cannot afford to heat them. That is where we will find the cold.

Last week, Liberal Premier Furey said, “The issue for this particular tax is there are limited options to change right now in Newfoundland and Labrador.... In the absence of the ability to change, what does the tax really accomplish?”

Hiking the carbon tax will accomplish more of the same, more of nothing. Our common-sense Conservative leader and I toured Newfoundland and Labrador over the last year. We were in Labrador. We were in St. John's East. We were in St. John's South—Mount Pearl. We were in Avalon and Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, my great riding of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and Long Range Mountains. We heard the message loud and clear that life is simply unaffordable these days.

On a recent visit to the Community Food Sharing Association in St. John's last week, we were shown quite a disturbing picture. Their demand has risen by over 40% in the last three or four years. They are now having to try to save food banks that are about to close their doors because they cannot find the resources to supply the needs of the public. We heard the struggles. We heard the pleas, such as those we heard from the food bank.

If the six NDP-Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador are hearing the same pleas, which I am sure they are, we really hope they listen to the requests of the people who elected them, the people who sent them here. They sent them here to be their voice in this place. They come a long way every week. I am looking over at my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. I travel on a plane with him quite a bit. He comes a long way from out where he lives. It is quite the trek. He is bringing those concerns from all the way out there in Bonavista—Burin—Trinity to the House. I am sure that the folks out in Clarenville, and New-Wes-Valley and places like that are hoping that he remembers the pain that the hike in this carbon tax is going to bring to those folks on April 1 and beyond, as it continues on into 2030. I hope that my hon. colleague and, along with him, his five NDP-Liberal colleagues support our motion to stop the hike in the carbon tax when the vote comes up later this week.

There is hope, because if the six NDP-Liberal members from Newfoundland and Labrador continue to neglect their constituents, there is going to be a price to be paid. These are the people who elected them to come here, to represent them and to be their voice in Ottawa. If they continue to not speak as their voice and vote against Conservative motions, such the one before the House to spike the hike, the price to be paid is not going to be a price on pollution. It is going to be a price on NDP-Liberal seats in this place. We plead with them, as their constituents do, to vote with Conservatives, spike the hike and heed our plea.

Common-sense Conservatives, very shortly, will axe the tax, build the homes, stop the crime and balance the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, aside from slogans, let me make a plea to the member who just spoke. On April 15, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, a good many of them his constituents, will have a cheque deposited in their account. A family of four will get $298. When that is added up, it will be well over $1,000 for the year. If the member votes in favour of this motion, what he is really doing is voting against that rebate cheque being deposited in their accounts.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that 80% of Canadians get more back in their rebates than they actually pay out. That is a fact. I will say that on CTV on a political panel. The member opposite will not do that.

Will the hon. member admit to why he wants to deny his constituents those rebate cheques?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am bewildered as to why my colleague across the way is fighting against the independently appointed Parliament Budget Officer, the watchdog for this place. In Newfoundland and Labrador, $1,874 is what the average household will pay this year. The rebate will be $1,497, for a net loss to each household of $377.

Is there a new math? I did not think math changed. We could go all the way back to the Greeks; it has stayed the same.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am hearing feedback on both sides of the House when it is not the appropriate time. I would ask members to please refrain from doing that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, last week, we had a constituency week. I went to 15 different seniors' residences and spoke to seniors across my riding. They were, very clearly, absolutely delighted with the NDP dental care program, which included seniors.

I listened to the member speak about how he wanted to make life more affordable for Canadians, yet his party votes against things like the dental care program. His party votes against things like the national food program for children. His party votes against things like taking GST off of home heating. Every time we bring forward a smart idea that will make life more affordable for Canadians, the Conservatives vote against it.

When I spoke to seniors in my riding, they were deeply concerned about the potential of a Conservative government. They asked me what I would do to ensure that those folks never got into power.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, that member should spend a day in my constituency office in Grand Falls-Windsor and listen to the phone calls and read the emails we get from seniors and folks who are absolutely disgusted with that fake dental program. It works for nobody.

Talking about our constituents, let us talk about her constituents. In Alberta, they will pay $2,943 this year in carbon tax. Their rebate will be $2,032, for a net loss to the average family in her riding of $911. She has a lot to be proud of.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There was still some back and forth, other people having debates. I want to remind members to please be respectful. If I have not recognized them, they are not the ones who should be speaking at the time.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

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

Madam Speaker, over the past year, I toured Quebec on the housing issue. I travelled all over Quebec. I met with over 70 organizations representing 15,000 members. These are people who work with the most vulnerable, namely, women who are victims of domestic violence and people with intellectual disabilities. We talked about housing and homelessness. No one—not a single person—talked to me about the carbon tax to deal with people who do not have shelter or housing. I was told that we need investments, that we need to invest in social housing and the most vulnerable. No one talked to me about the carbon tax.

When I hear my Conservative colleagues say that they are close to the disadvantaged and the people who care for people, I cannot believe that they would say that.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what my hon. colleague does not understand about the carbon tax, but a lot of the things that are consumed in his riding enter Canada in Vancouver. They come across the country and the carbon tax is applied to the fuel that is used to ship everything from B.C. to La Belle Province. The grain that the great bread of Quebec is made from, the consumers of Quebec pay for all of these things. He knows it. He knows that common-sense Conservatives have a plan to build homes, and we will do it and even help that man in his own riding.