Debates of March 19th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[An hon. member]

You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that you do not have a plan. You need to be truthful in this place.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, she is heckling me now because she is quite upset that I am calling her out. She thinks she can heckle and not be called out on it, but clearly, it is climate denial. She is trying to shout me down at the moment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have been trying to listen to this dismal debate, but people shouting at each other has lowered the tone even more than it normally would be, so I would ask you to let people say their dismal points so they can go on the record without this kind of bitter batter back and forth.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to clarify if, in fact, it is a point of order when a member absolutely misleads the House about what another member said during debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would caution members not to impugn what other members have said in their speeches to make sure that we treat everyone as honourable members, as we all accept in this chamber. I want to make sure we have a reasonable debate among members of the House.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member across the way clearly misled the House on something my colleague said. I think it is incumbent upon you as Speaker to have him withdraw a comment that was a direct and absolute intentional misrepresentation of something one of my colleagues on this side of the House said.

The member is known for that. You know he is known for that, and it is about time somebody called him on it. I request that you do that, Mr. Speaker.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member yelled what I said she said. You can check Hansard and go back to the tapes. I am happy to come back if it was not what the member said. It was loud and clear, and it was caught by Hansard. I suggest you go back to check because it was very clear.

To allow other members to impugn what I heard seems to be hypocritical for those members. They did not hear it and were not being yelled at. I was sitting next to the hon. member. This is preposterous.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

This is why we recognize an individual to speak, and there is a question and comment period afterward so people can be clear in their positions on whatever we are talking about. I would caution members not to put words in other people's mouths. It seems to happen an awful lot in the chamber, and it should not happen. I would ask members to be judicious in the words they use. We will go back to listen to the tapes if that is what we need to do to find out who said what when.

I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue, but I will caution him. Maybe he could move on to his next point.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again the Conservatives are saying the quiet part out loud, which is that they deny the existence of climate change, an existential threat to humanity. They come back time and time again with slogans. I have said before that their only environmental plan is to recycle slogans in this place. They represent ridings across the country, ridings that are in drought, or that have suffered from fires, floods and hurricanes, which have been exacerbated by climate change. What do they do? They heckle, mock, and deny. They offer no plan for the future and mislead Canadians on what is actually increasing prices.

The major increase that Canadians are suffering from, especially on food, is with respect to climate change. I have asked a number of Conservative members over the course of the last couple of years to explain to me why prices for food in the United States have increased at the same rate they have increased in Canada. They have increased at the same rate, even though there is not a national price on pollution in the United States.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are still heckling me. They cannot even accept the evidence before them that it is climate change. They cannot accept it from the farmers in their own ridings. I have seen it in Niagara with vine loss.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we need to be accurate because this is for the historical record.

My hon. colleague claimed that the Conservatives were heckling. I think it was just a bunch of grunts and snorts. I think he should be accurate about how the Conservatives are responding.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order. While I do appreciate the levity that the hon. member tries to bring to the House, let us try to be serious in the discussion we are having today.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I expect a little better from the member in the seriousness of this debate. I know he believes passionately about this.

Speaking about farmers back home, just a couple of years ago we saw a 25% loss of vines in the grape industry in Niagara. We are seeing catastrophic losses in British Columbia. I know that some members represent those farmers. Again, as I said, there have been historic fires and floods. Those costs are borne by Canadians, and what do Conservatives have to say to those Canadians? They have no plan. There is nothing on the table, and those costs will continue to increase. People may not be able to get insurance. That is a reality as one's insurance costs will go up, but that is ignored.

It is funny. The first time I heard a Conservative politician even mention a rebate was when the premier of the government in Saskatchewan was trying to reassure Saskatchewan residents that they should not worry as they would still get their rebates, and that is because Canadians look forward to seeing that. Conservatives ignore that whole aspect of it. They do not address it, and they make up numbers on the cost of the price on pollution, even though they know full well that Canadians, especially lower-income Canadians, are much better off.

By cutting the price on pollution, the biggest recipient would be the oil companies, and they would not pass that along. As we have now seen, oil companies are having record profits. It is a commodity-based industry. They are not going to pass that profit onto us. This is about the Conservatives standing up for big oil, which is truly unfortunate.

I believe some of them do understand that there is a climate crisis before us, but why is there no plan? All of them ran on pricing pollution. A couple of years ago it was fine for them to go door to door to say that they were going to price pollution. It was not a plan that I particularly agreed with, but it was nice that every party in this country, including every member sitting here, ran on pricing pollution, knowing we need an environmental plan.

This evening there will be tributes to the late prime minister Brian Mulroney. In all of the speeches yesterday, there was talk of him being a great statesman. We are lucky as Canadians to have had him at the helm to work with the United States and other countries to get things done, whether that was for apartheid or environmental issues. One of those issues was pricing pollution. I think we can all remember the scourge of acid rain, what it was doing, the concerns Canadians had and the way to fix it.

[An hon. member]

It was not a carbon tax.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member heckled me that it is not a carbon tax.

The way to fix it was to price pollution, to price the thing one did not want so one has less of it. This is cognitive dissonance. They cannot get it through their heads that this works. They can yell and try to shout me down, but it worked. Former prime minister Mulroney worked with his counterparts in the United States. They are laughing, which is unbelievably shocking.

However, it worked. They worked with premiers across parties. They worked with the Liberal premier in Ontario. They worked with the president of the United States. They worked across the world to get a price on pollution so that they could eliminate the scourge of acid ran. We saw that it is not an issue. Canada can be a leader, which we choose to be, or we can go the Conservative way and just deny this incredible threat that is facing us.

In 2015, Canada was on track for our emissions to grow to 815 megatonnes by 2030. Conservatives had no climate plan. It was free to pollute, and oil and gas companies were allowed to emit unlimited pollution.

Our latest update projects that our emissions will be 467 megatonnes in 2030, which is 43% below where they should be. I would have thought that in this place we could all agree that we do not like pollution. I would have thought that this would be a consensus we could all come to. Unfortunately, it is not. As a result of our work, our emissions have declined by 7% since 2015 for the first time ever and we are on track to meet our climate targets.

I occasionally speak of them as my two favourite constituents, Hannah and Ethan, who are my son and daughter. They are seven and five years old. I am disappointed that we do not have conversations about what the future will look like for them in 2030 or 2050. We look at a party that only wants there to be profits for oil companies right now. I am hoping that for the rest of day we can have that debate.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

First, I want to wish my father a happy birthday today.

On a more sombre note, I also want to recognize the life of a constituent, Ms. Gemma Bittante, who passed away recently. She was a pillar in my life, a pillar in the Italian community and somebody who will be greatly missed. She gave hours and hours of volunteer work and made me hot dogs when I was just a little kindergarten student. May perpetual light shine upon her. I wish her family the best in this difficult time.

I listened with intent to my hon. colleague's speech. He spoke about disincentivizing, and that is my word, not the word he used, certain behaviours and we tax those.

In my view, the problem with the carbon tax is that we cannot disincentivize people from eating, and the carbon tax impacts the price of food. One cannot disincentivize people from driving when they have a rural location.

How can this lead to the result that the Liberal Party wants when the reality is that people need to do the things it is trying to curtail?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the rebate is not mentioned, which covers the things he is talking about. Farmers are exempt. Farm diesel is exempt from the price on pollution.

We can incentivize car companies, for example. The auto industry is one of the most innovative in the world when it comes to greening up. We have much more fuel-efficient vehicles precisely because of initiatives by government and regulation in terms of making cars less polluting.

I know that they would like to throw that away, but I honestly believe that the member, who comes from a province that has suffered from the severe impacts of climate change, wants to see action rather than saying that we do not care, which seems to be where the Conservative Party is right now.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who worked to implement the carbon tax, spoke to the media yesterday.

She said that the Liberal government had done a poor job of selling its own environmental and economic measure and that it was a shame the Conservatives had completely taken control of the narrative. She wondered how this could have happened.

According to her, the Minister of Finance apparently was not too keen on the idea of environmental measures and was more on the side of the oil companies. This is information that was recently revealed by the media.

Can my colleague tell me when the Liberals are finally going to take back control of the narrative and defend the measure they put in place, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Incidentally, this measure is not going to do the job on its own. The government should put other measures in place so that we can meet our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec has shown us how effective a price on pollution has been, which was in existence well before the federal price and well before we got elected. Some members of the Conservative Party were members of a British Columbia Conservative Party that brought in a price on pollution because they knew it was effective.

I think it is going to take all of us to dispel the misinformation that is being spouted by the Conservative Party on this issue, to care about the climate, to care about our children and future generations or to at least have the Conservatives come up with some kind of plan.

Someone called the price on pollution a magic bullet. It is not, but the Conservatives offer nothing. We could maybe demand that they offer something to explain to Canadians what they are going to do.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we lived through the dismal decade of the Harper years, when Canada was the fourth-worst country in the world with respect to emissions around climate change. We saw the doubling of housing prices under the Conservatives. We saw the doubling of food bank line-ups under the Conservatives. We saw people forced to work longer and longer as the retirement age of seniors was scrapped. It was terrible.

My question for the Liberals this. Why have they continued so many of the same practices? The massive handouts to oil and gas CEOs have continued under the Liberals. Yes, they have moved up from the absolutely deplorable record of the climate-denying Conservatives, but only a few spots.

The reality is that the Liberals should be putting in place things that the NDP have been pushing in the House of Commons as the adults in the House, such as ensuring that we actually have an excess profits tax, that we end oil and gas subsidies and that we actually invest in clean energy.

Why are the Liberals not doing the things that they know they have to do, if we are really to beat this battle against climate change?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing it. We are ending fossil fuel subsidies. We are engaging in serious plans on technology and on other issues. It is not just a price on pollution; it is a comprehensive plan. We are working on it, and we are happy to work with the NDP on this issue. We have been taking action since 2015, and we will continue to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, with whom I will be sharing my time, I find the motion a bit odd. It is based on a survey, not facts. It is a motion that misleads Quebeckers and Canadians. It says the carbon tax increase planned for April 1 will take place immediately when it is in fact staggered until 2030 or 2031.

To be clear, it is not our job to tell the opposition parties what to do with their opposition days, but the Conservatives are obsessed with the carbon tax. They cannot sleep at night, and have no other content, so this is their focus. It is their choice. Nonetheless, their motion could at least contain facts. That would be a good start.

It is not a motion based on science. The Conservative Party could have talked about global warming and offered alternative solutions, but it did not. Nor is it a motion based on respect for Quebec, since nowhere does it mention that the federal carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. I will therefore repeat so it is clear for the Conservatives: the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, either directly or indirectly, through regulation or through the back door. Lastly, this motion is not even about sound management of public funds, since it does not address the $83 billion the government has earmarked for oil subsidies.

Yesterday, in the rather embarrassing speech given by the Leader of the Opposition in honour of Mr. Mulroney, it was stated that Mr. Mulroney reduced the size of government. The Conservatives could have tabled a motion to cut the size of government by $83 billion, but they did not, because they are oil Marxist-Leninists. The motion tabled for consideration was written and proposed by someone incompetent who would be fired from any workplace where facts, knowledge and rigour are required. We can draw our own conclusions.

Now, I would like to take advantage of this lull to thank the member from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I feel this is the right time. Under the Charest government—because, as we know, she is a Liberal—she was part of the cabinet that brought in the array of decrees that introduced the Quebec emissions trading system. Because of the now-Conservative member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, whom I thank from the bottom of my heart, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.

It does not apply directly. It does not apply either by law or under the clean fuel regulations, which the Conservatives have dubbed the second carbon tax in an attempt to mislead Quebeckers. We have more stringent legislation, and our businesses know that we will continue to be consistent, that we will apply it. Our businesses have already started complying, and it is working.

The Conservatives' latest assertion to dupe Quebeckers is that it applies to Quebec through the back door. Listening to them, it is as though this glass of water in front of me is made of propane and that lemons are made of Alberta diesel. They claim everything we buy is made in Alberta.

We even hit a world record recently. As we know, there is parliamentary work to be done here. The work of Parliament must be taken seriously. Yesterday, in committee meetings, where we are supposed to work on important issues for Quebeckers and Canadians, the Conservatives paralyzed proceedings with motions on the carbon tax, suggesting that it applies to Quebec. In the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, they moved motions regarding the carbon tax as it relates to immigrants, when it does not apply in Quebec and they are not even in Canada. That is what the Conservatives have come to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member from Calgary, and I sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. No motion was received on behalf of my party regarding the carbon tax. Could my colleague correct the record?