Debates of April 9th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake.

It is a pleasure to stand here on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

That was an interesting exchange we just heard when the NDP member took issue with many of the things the Liberals are doing that are destroying the economy of our country right now. However, at the same time, when she and her colleagues have a chance to vote against the Liberal government and go into an election to change the government, they side with it every single time.

I just had the opportunity to come back from my constituency, where, like many colleagues, I was meeting with constituents. I had 6 two-hour constituent round tables last week. I had a chance to interact with dozens of constituents at these round tables, and a lot of issues were raised. Interestingly, the number one issue was not the carbon tax at those round tables. Time and again, in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, what was articulated at those round tables by constituents was how we can get rid of the Liberal Prime Minister before he destroys the economy of Canada.

I will just mention a few of the other issues that were raised. The carbon tax was definitely the main policy issue raised, as well as housing, runaway deficits, safety in our streets, immigration and the recent challenges with the immigration system. Of course, health care is always raised, especially at a time when it is clear that we are going to spend more on interest on the debt the Liberal government has rang up than we will spend on health care in this country over the next few years, so there are a lot of issues to talk about.

I think it is helpful, in the context of what we are talking about today, to revisit the legacy of economic chaos that is in the DNA of the Liberal Party, and that is the Trudeau legacy. It is very important to revisit the Trudeau legacy of the 1970s and 1980s. It was a Liberal government that ran up 14 deficits in 15 years, and there were results of that time. Of course, that was a time of drastic economic experimentation by, at the time, the most left-leaning prime minister we had ever had. Obviously, that has definitely been beaten by the current government, but at that time, it was the most left-leaning government we had ever had. It undertook an economic experiment, and we saw crises, including an energy crisis, an inflation crisis, a housing crisis and a national unity crisis, that stretched right to the end of that government in 1984 and, interestingly, way beyond the time it was in power.

Of course, the nine years following that government was the Mulroney government. I remember when some of the Liberal members were new and would come into the House in 2015 and 2016 to talk about the biggest deficits in Canadian history being under the Mulroney government, but what they did not mention at that time was that those deficits were made up entirely of interest on Trudeau's debt. The deficits it ran were largely in balance, in fact, probably a bit in surplus, but the interest payments on the Trudeau debt caused us to run deficits for many years after that. That bill came due in about the mid-nineties, from 1995 to 1997, when we were under the Liberal Chrétien-Martin government. Some of these members served under that government. When the bill came due, we saw absolutely dramatic cuts, some of the most significant cuts we have ever seen, to health care and social services spending in this country.

That is interesting because Liberal members often stand up to ask what Conservatives are going to cut when we talk about bringing some sanity to our fiscal situation in this country, but what really made significant cuts to spending on things that are important to Canadians was that Liberal government, which in two years, from 1995 to 1997, cut 32% from health care and social services transfers in this country. Can members imagine a government in 2024 having to cut 32% from health care and social services funding? That is what happened from 1995 to 1997 because of the absolutely tragic economic legacy of a Trudeau government.

Here we are again. We are now eight years into a government. It has been eight deficits in eight years for the current government. I assume we will have a ninth coming up soon, so it will be nine deficits in nine years. That is 23 deficits in 24 years under the economic policies of the current Prime Minister and the Prime Minister Trudeau of the seventies and eighties.

Under the current Liberal government, backed up by the NDP, we have doubled our country's debt. Taking a look at the things that could help that, and thinking about the conversation we are having today, what might help us in terms of our economic situation right now and the chaos we are seeing economically and otherwise is, perhaps, revenues from oil and gas. That might actually help.

I took a look at the oil and gas import numbers for 2022, the most recent numbers we have to date, and they would be astonishing to Canadians who assume we have a lot of oil and gas production in Canada. Obviously, we are one of the world leaders in terms of our vast resources and the potential that comes with our oil and gas resources, but what a lot of people do not realize is that Canada, every year, imports oil and gas, because the policies of the current Liberal government have made it impossible to build a pipeline in this country. Instead, mostly to eastern Canada, we are importing oil and gas.

In 2022 we imported $21.5 billion in crude oil alone. That was up 46% from 2021. Of course, the Americans are the number one supplier of oil and gas products like crude oil to Canada. The number two and three countries are Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, totalling over $5 billion in crude oil alone coming into Canada. On refined petroleum products, we are talking about even more: $26.1 billion in 2022 alone, which was up 55% from 2021. We were importing about $47 billion between the two of those in 2022, and that is product that could absolutely have been sourced here in Canada.

The reason that situation exists is that we hold Canadian producers, hard-working producers and workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country, to a higher standard than we hold producers in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. We do not ask producers in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia to account for upstream emissions, for the impact on the environment or for the impact on the social fabric of their countries.

It was interesting that about a year ago we had the minister before committee and I had a chance to ask him about this. His was response was that, of course, Canada has no ability to hold those countries to account. Their own domestic governments control those types of things, and Canada cannot walk in and hold them to account, but we definitely hold Canadian producers to account for that. The one thing we can do is refuse to take oil and gas from countries that do not meet the Canadian standard, the same standard we apply to Canadian producers.

This is the world the Prime Minister has created in eight years. If we go back eight years and take a look at the situation that existed eight years ago, and our leader summed it up very well this morning when he spoke, it was a world where we had a balanced budget. In 2015, we had worked hard, coming out of the economic slowdown, and The New York Times spoke of Canada having the richest middle class in the world, having just overtaken the Americans after decades. It was a situation where we did not have the housing crisis we have right now.

I look forward to speaking some more about these things when we take questions from the other parties.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whom many Canadians have respected as one of Canada's greatest prime ministers for a lot of his efforts and the things he brought in, like Canada's Charter of Rights and the repatriation of the Constitution, at the very least. I think the member undervalues that. It is interesting that he wanted to highlight the past, although he has often criticized me for bringing back some of the disasters of the Stephen Harper era.

Maybe he can justify how it is that Stephen Harper had a mega, multi-billion dollar surplus handed to him, which he converted into a multi-billion dollar deficit. That was before the recession took place. How does he justify that Stephen Harper's government did not balance the budget? Even during the last year of Stephen Harper's government, he had to sell off shares of GM at a huge discount to try to give the impression that he balanced the books.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, that question is quite laughable. First of all, there was a lot of disinformation in that question. However, I think the point to be made is that we faced an economic crisis. His party's reaction, by the way, at the time, was to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP to try and take down the government right after an election. That was the response of the Liberals at the time.

Of course, anyone who was in the House would remember that our government could not spend enough to satisfy the Liberals. Every single question at the time was about why we were not spending more. The biggest difference from then until now is that we immediately laid out a plan to get back to balance by 2015. We followed that plan absolutely, to a T.

The member's government inherited the incredible fiscal situation we had in Canada at that time.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from Alberta deeply shares the love of our province, like many do at home. The reality is that they are stuck between the question of whether the carbon tax is truly hurting their bottom dollar, while also trying to find ways to feed their families.

We can see a kind of hypocrisy in place, particularly with respect to the Conservatives' policy on the carbon tax, which increased on April 1 by three cents at the same time that Danielle Smith, the Conservative Premier of Alberta, increased the gas tax by four cents. That kind of hypocrisy is, I think, something that Canadians are reeling from. It is something they cannot get a path forward on.

I also want to comment on the fact that we have even seen in Alberta the reason Harper had such surpluses in his budget. It was that he weakened oil, for example. The purchase or takeover of Nexen by China was given the green light by the Conservatives at that time in order to balance their budget. They, of course, wanted to tell the Canadian public that they were balancing it, but today we are paying the penalty for that.

It is hard to believe the Conservatives are genuinely addressing the problem of affordability because, I think, it is in a way that Canadians cannot understand. The carbon tax is three cents. That is the Prime Minister's fault, but the leader of the Conservative Party in Alberta increased it by four cents. How does he justify that?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what is going on today. It might be an effect of the eclipse yesterday or whatever, but I wonder if the hon. member knows that we are in the Canadian House of Commons here, talking about what the federal government is doing. We are both members of opposition parties, but only one of us is actually taking our role seriously to oppose the government. The member votes for the government every single time he has an opportunity.

I will hearken back to the days of Stephen Harper and take a look at this New York Times article, which states that “middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000—now appear to be higher than in the United States.” That is from 2014. The article talks about an income survey. It reads, “But other income surveys conducted by government agencies suggest that since 2010”, which was the time of the global economic meltdown, “pay in Canada has risen faster than pay in the United States and is now most likely higher.” That was in 2014. We are in a completely different circumstance now because of the member's party supporting the government.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, today Conservatives are asking the House to declare that the Prime Minister convene a carbon tax emergency meeting with all first ministers. This meeting must address the ongoing carbon tax crisis and the financial burden it places on Canadians, the Prime Minister's recent 23% carbon tax increase, and plans for provinces to opt out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other responsible ideas to lower emissions, given that under the government's current environmental plan, Canada now ranks 62 out of 67 countries on the climate change performance index. The motion also asks that this meeting be publicly televised and held within five weeks of the motion being adopted.

The Prime Minister just does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who then ships it, we end up taxing the family that purchases it. Then we put the burden on Canadian citizens, and that is exactly what the government continues to do. That is why 70% of Canadians and 70% of provincial premiers oppose the carbon tax increase. Three premiers even warned Liberals in Ottawa personally that the latest carbon tax increase will push Canadians over the edge. I will let my good friend from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame highlight what it means for the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who was the Prime Minister's campaign chair when he ran for leader, to call for this emergency meeting with all premiers.

Premier Andrew Furey must be worried. I am told things are so bad for the Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador that in a recent by-election, with another under way as we speak, the Liberal provincial candidates are not even calling themselves Liberals anymore on their own lawn signs. That is a rarity in the country, especially for Newfoundland, and they are not even using the colour red, which the Liberals have owned since the Lester Pearson era in the 1960s, after the red maple leaf flag was adopted.

Over the past two weeks, when I was back in Miramichi—Grand Lake, everyone I ran into wanted to talk about three things: obviously, the eclipse and where best to watch it, but, more importantly, the affordability crisis hammering people and the negative impact of the inflationary carbon tax. Many may have seen the sad story out of Gagetown, New Brunswick, home to Canada's largest army base but now a place where 40 to 50 military families a week visit the local food bank just to feed their kids. Gagetown food bank usage has doubled, with more and more seniors not able to feed themselves either.

A Canadian food charity recently reported this year that it expects a million additional visits to food banks just in 2024, after record-breaking visits in 2023, including two million in just a single month last year. New Brunswickers are being forced to choose between filling up their cars, heating their homes and feeding their families.

Last week, on April 1, New Brunswickers woke up to the world's worst April Fool's Day joke, as the NDP-Liberal coalition hiked the carbon tax by 23%. This is just the next step in its disastrous plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years, making everything more expensive for everyone in our country. Even worse, the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board invoked its interrupter clause the very next day, spiking gas prices another eight cents a litre overnight. We can imagine the hurt in New Brunswick.

After the NDP-Liberal coalition's carbon tax increase, the maximum price for a litre of regular self-serve gas in New Brunswick was $1.75. The next morning, it was $1.83 per litre. It is painful every time New Brunswickers fill up their tanks.

Last week's April Fool's Day tax hike makes it clear, though, that Canadians will experience no relief so long as the NDP-Liberal coalition is in power. During the Easter break, I also went to Prince Edward Island in search of the famous subway in Charlottetown. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance told islanders they should use their bicycles instead of driving their carbureted cars to work. Lo and behold, I could not find a subway in Prince Edward Island. I drove around and looked for it, as I thought I might have missed something over the years, but I sure found a lot of upset farmers and truckers.

Someone with a trucking company, a company that has over 100 trucks on the road, told me something, and I want people in the House to really listen to this example. For those listening at home, this will give a little insight into the long-term plan. These trucking companies have been told that by 2035, they are all supposed to be changed to electric transports. An electric transport costs a quarter of a million dollars more right now than the transports that companies are currently using. Imagine, in another nine years in this country, how much that price is going to go up.

For potato growers, processors and shippers, it really is a tax on a tax on a tax. The average farmer is now paying $150,000 a year on what they call the “weather tax” on the island. I remember being an energy critic in New Brunswick, probably back in 2014-16; I had been like the understudy for the previous energy minister. It was said at the time that it would take 80 to 90 years to even make an honest effort to get off fossil fuels in this country. That statistic, which was from 2014, was researched. In 2014, we thought it was going to take 100 years to get off fossil fuels, and that was pushing it.

Here we are, 10 years later, and people can now understand why this radical ideology is costing them, and they cannot afford to live any more. This ideology does not make sense. Canada is fuelled by oil and gas. The world knows it. We are inventors in that category. We develop it better than anybody else. We refine it better than anybody else. We have the best labour laws. We have the best environmental standards. We are literally number one around the globe for that, so it is a very shameful attempt by the Liberal government to try to rewrite history.

The notion that the NDP-Liberal coalition can tax the weather to bring down greenhouse gas emissions is a falsehood. Trying to encourage residents in Miramichi—Grand Lake to transition away from gas-powered cars and trucks is foolhardy. I represent a large, mostly rural district, but it does include the city of Miramichi. According to the ChargeFinder website, there are three charging stations in Miramichi: one at the community college, one at Northumberland Square mall and one near the city hall. Those are facts. There are three charging stations for more than 57,000 people who live around that basin, including the outskirts of the city. That math does not add up. That does not make sense for anybody.

The response from the Prime Minister that there is no need for an emergency meeting, since he already convened one with premiers in 2016, is simply ridiculous. Do members find it a bit odd not only that the meeting was eight years ago, but also that none of the people now serving as premiers were in office at that time? This is an entirely new slate of first ministers the Prime Minister is ignoring while 70% of them plus, and growing, disagree with him. The NDP-Liberal coalition must listen to Canada's premiers who are calling for an emergency meeting on the carbon tax.

On this side of the House, Conservatives will work with Canada's premiers to bring home lower prices for all Canadians. In Miramichi—Grand Lake, everywhere I go, I hear the hurt that it is causing people. We used to have a median household income of $34,000, and that stat would be a few years old now, but we can imagine, in a rural area like mine, how hard this is hitting people. Our leader has been clear since day one that only common-sense Conservatives would bring home lower prices and would axe the tax on everything for everyone for good. I think Canadians are finally realizing, despite all the hurt, that there is actually hope in this country. The hope in this country is that our leader, the hon. member for the riding of Carleton, has shown time and time again that he sees the hurt that Liberal policies are causing Canadians, and he wants to put policies in place to put money in their paycheques.

We should not be paying this. When I was on the island, the media, CBC of course, asked me, “If you axe the tax, would you axe the rebate?” I looked at the reporter and said that there would be no need for a rebate if we were not taxing the citizens. Then, I had to remind him that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that people on the island were losing at least $400 or more per month after achieving a rebate.

It was a pleasure to speak to this. To conclude, the Prime Minister needs to listen, and he needs to convene this meeting and needs to stop hurting Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I look around the world North America, and I see that countries like Germany, Italy, France, or the European Union as a whole, the U.K., or England, Mexico, and a growing number of states in the United States, are bringing in a price on pollution. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party all recognize that a price on pollution is the best way to deal with it.

Contrary to what the member just finished saying, 80% of Canadians do get more money back in the form of the rebate than they pay for the tax. Having said that, there is an incredible incentive there. Why has the Conservative Party of Canada chosen to intentionally mislead Canadians with false information, in an attempt to have a bumper sticker so that they can get votes by saying “axe the tax”?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would say that the member opposite has clearly misread the memo where the Parliamentary Budget Officer for the House said that Canadians are paying more than $700 per household after getting the rebate, and each province has a different number. Some are at thresholds well over $1,000 and some are a little below. Everybody is losing money; that has been proven in the House.

The parliamentary secretary opposite mentioned Germany and a few countries in Europe, and he talked about a cost on pollution. He should have mentioned where Germany, England and France get their energy supply. They get it from Russia. That is where they get it because of what the Prime Minister of this country said. We have one of the largest deposits of natural gas in Canada, in my province, and we have a really short boat ride over to England. If we were to develop our natural gas, which the Prime Minister historically said is uneconomical, they would not have to buy their energy from Putin so that the Liberals could continue to fuel the war machine over there.

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

Madam Speaker, the way the motion reads, it calls it a “carbon tax emergency”. Right now, we are seeing global ocean temperatures higher than ever in history. We had 100 dormant fires in northern Alberta for the first time in our history. On Vancouver Island, where I live, we are 54% below the average snowpack, like most of British Columbia. There are drought-like conditions right across the Prairies. That is an emergency. That is called a climate emergency.

I am going to read a quote from Sandy Garossino. She was at the energy talks in Parksville. She stated on X, “Please stop talking like a teenager trying to get out of family chores.” That comment was directed at Conservatives.

Is my colleague going to offer any solutions today to tackle the climate emergency, or is he going to continue to try to get out of doing his chores, like everybody else?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that it is coming from a party where obviously the members are running to retire because they have sold their souls, and now, they do not want to face that on the door step. I get that because they sold their soul and now they are going to have to deal with it at somebody's doorstep.

The member talked about forest fires. In New Brunswick, we had a lot of forest fires as well, and then some statistics came out, stating that 97.6% or 97.8% of all forest fires in New Brunswick were started by human beings, by human error and by arsonists. Therefore, in my province, we can attribute none of our forest fires to this climate agenda that the Liberals have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's science.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's fact.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

No, Madam Speaker, it is not false; it is actually true. I know it goes against everything they spread. Every time somebody is murdered with a knife, the Liberals call for gun control. No one can even understand any of them anymore.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind members that if they want to contribute, they should be waiting for the appropriate time. This has been going on a bit today, with back and forth. When individuals are speaking, others are trying to be part of that conversation. I just want to remind members to please avoid doing so.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I want to clarify this. Is my colleague saying that people boiled hot water and put it in the ocean, and that is the reason the oceans are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the esteemed House.

We are discussing something very important to Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake has a point of order.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to stand up on this point of order because, what the member behind me said that I said, I did not say. I said nothing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

These are not points of order. They are points of debate.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to support my colleague. It is really unfair for the NDP members to talk about science when there are Conservatives in the room. I think it puts us all at a great disadvantage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is the time to be debating the subject matter that is before the House, the opposition motion. I would ask members to please wait until the appropriate time.

I would also ask members to not be speaking and having conversations while the hon. member is speaking.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, respect and decorum in the House should be the first thing that all members come to an agreement on and behave accordingly.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, a good friend and a dear colleague.

Before beginning the discussion on the heart of the debate, let us just put a simple fact out there. Today, we found out that the world has experienced its hottest March on record, marking the 10th straight month of breaking global temperatures, according to the EU Copernicus Climate Change Service.

The month of March 2024 is the hottest March on record due to climate change, and we have an opposition party with half or three-quarters of its members do not even realize or believe that climate change is real and that we need to act. They have absolutely no plan.

I understand I have a heckler—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has made an accusation that 50% of the Conservatives do not believe in climate change. I think he needs to prove it. Maybe it is 100%.