Debates of April 9th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has supported every program that the Liberals have brought to the table. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this government's $500‑billion discretionary spending in the estimates. That money will be used to centralize and expand the government's powers. I want to clarify that I am not talking about spending on health care or seniors, which is already legislated and does not need to be voted on in the House. I am talking about spending on bureaucracy, consultants and large centralizing programs here in Ottawa.

Ottawa needs to stop building a bigger bureaucracy. Ottawa needs to shrink the bureaucracy and ensure there is more construction, less red tape and more houses. That is the Conservatives' common-sense policy.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I offer my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for this motion, which calls on the Prime Minister to listen to the calls of the premiers to talk about the carbon tax.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, food bank usage is at record highs. Young people cannot afford to buy homes. Canadians cannot afford to put food on the table. Gas is over two dollars a litre in British Columbia. Despite the Liberal media misinformation, this is a direct result of the failed carbon tax and a $1.2-trillion national debt. In fact, that is the policy intention of this tax. Canadians are hurting because of it, but the Prime Minister is not listening and does not care. Instead, he chose to hike the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. Worse, he plans to quadruple it by 2030, which is not sustainable.

The premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick recently wrote to the Liberal chair of the finance committee asking for an opportunity to express their frustrations with the carbon tax and relay the concerns of their citizens who are struggling with rising costs. The Liberal chair, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, ignored the premiers and refused to call a meeting.

I will take this opportunity to recognize and thank the brave chair of the government operations committee, my colleague, the member for Edmonton—West, who demonstrated principled leadership. He convened meetings at government operations so that the committee, and by extension Canadians, could hear from the premiers directly. Sadly, their concerns fell on deaf Liberal ears.

The premiers of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and even the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador have written to the Prime Minister, demanding a meeting to address carbon tax issues. They understand an urgency that the Prime Minister ignores.

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition also wrote to the Prime Minister, echoing the demands of the premiers and asking for an emergency meeting to hear from them directly. The Prime Minister's response was that he had a meeting with them in 2016. That is an absolutely pathetic response. None of the premiers he met with in 2016 is still in office today.

Here is the reality. The NDP-Liberal carbon tax is a scam. It is nothing more than a tax plan disingenuously disguised as an environmental plan. It is a behavioural science tool designed to control people’s behaviour, not to reduce emissions. In fact, it has not reduced emissions but continues to punish Canadian families for the crimes of buying groceries and filling up at the pumps. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed as much, saying that “most households will see a net loss”. To put it simply, the carbon tax is just like the Prime Minister: a failure and not worth the cost.

Skyrocketing food prices have resulted in record food bank usage, including in my community of South Surrey—White Rock. It was recently reported that more than 1,000 residents are now using the South Surrey food bank every week. That is a 35% increase. The Guru Nanak Food Bank, which operates in both Surrey and Delta, is not even included in the B.C. food bank statistics. It is now helping support three times more families than in 2020, when it opened. It even has a special section for international students.

Food banks in my community are also dealing with a significant shortage in donations, raising concerns that they may not be able to accommodate the increase in demand. This is heartbreaking, but it is the reality after eight years, despite what the government would have us believe.

The carbon tax is not popular. In fact, there is only one provincial party that is enthusiastically embracing the carbon tax, and that’s the B.C. NDP. Mainstreet Research recently asked British Columbians who they agreed with when it came to the carbon tax dispute between the federal Conservative leader and David Eby. Fifty-four per cent of respondents agreed with our leader and our position that the carbon tax hike should not have been spiked on April 1. Only 34% of respondents agreed with Premier David Eby.

British Columbians are being forced to choose among filling up their cars, heating their homes and feeding their families. Over 200,000 British Columbians are using the food bank every month, yet Premier Eby is happily implementing this federally mandated tax grab.

On page 75 of the 2024 B.C. budget, it states, “Budget 2023 implemented annual increases to the tax to align with federal requirements. B.C.’s carbon tax is currently at $65 per tonne, and will increase every April 1 by $15 per tonne until rates are equal to $170 per tonne in 2030.” He is telling us now that B.C.'s carbon tax will increase to comply with the Prime Minister's mandate. According to the Vancouver Sun, B.C.'s carbon tax will rise by $9 billion over the next three years and only credit back $3.5 billion. Liberal math defies understanding. That is a net cost to British Columbians of five and a half billion dollars.

This brings me back to the motion we are debating today. Whether or not the NDP-Liberal government can admit it, we are in a carbon tax crisis. Despite the opposition of 70% of Canadians and seven out of 10 premiers, the Prime Minister refused to spike the hike April 1 and, instead, chose to inflict more pain on Canadians when they can least afford it.

When it comes to emissions reductions, the carbon tax has been a demonstrable failure. COP ranks Canada 62nd out of 67 countries on climate performance. Once again, the NDP-Liberal government does not have an environmental plan; it has a tax plan. Provinces need the flexibility to determine what is best in their jurisdictions. Conservatives believe in using technology that actually delivers results, such as by green-lighting green projects, exporting LNG to end Europe’s dependence on Russian oil, and capturing and storing carbon. We do not believe in virtue signalling and taxes that only inflict pain on struggling Canadian families.

The reality is that the carbon tax crisis is the Prime Minister's own making, and his response to the premiers is unacceptable. What is he afraid of? Although we are separated by thousands of kilometres, our citizens are all facing the same grinding issues. For a Confederation such as ours to work, we need to bring people together; if there was ever a time to do so, it is now.

The Prime Minister must call a meeting, sit down with the premiers and let Canadians into the conversation. After all, the Prime Minister said, “Government and its information must be open by default.” Now is his chance, his big moment. The Prime Minister needs to do the right thing. He needs to show some courage, sit down with the premiers, whom he has never met with before, and end the carbon tax crisis that he created. He needs to do his job.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know how I am going to vote on today's opposition day motion that we are talking about, at least peripherally. The discussion around carbon taxes always brings to mind, because it is a complex problem, the H.L. Mencken comment, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is clear, simple and wrong.” I could add, as an update, that it very rarely rhymes. I would love to see a discussion that is fact-based, listening to the experts, such as the 200 economists who say carbon pricing works, or to sit down with the premiers and listen to the science.

I recently, in this place, spoke of the record of the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who definitely worked with provinces, imposed additional costs to stop pollution and made actions count. We do not have a carbon tax crisis; we have a climate crisis. I would welcome an opportunity to listen to the scientific and economic experts and bring everyone together.

Could members of the official opposition confirm that, should this meeting with premiers take place, they would listen to the top experts on climate science at the meeting about the threat to our economy posed by wildfires, heat domes, floods and storms of all kinds that are driven by the climate crisis?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome questions from a fellow British Columbian member of Parliament.

It is hard to speculate on what a dialogue would look like if we have a Prime Minister who effectively says, “Well, I met with him in 2016.” He has not even opened the door yet to such a conference.

Certainly, details can be arranged after that, but there has to be a willingness by the government to sit down and show courage where there is a national crisis and actually put bones onto solutions by talking to the first ministers in this country. This is a big country, but this Confederation was built on dialogue. If there is no dialogue, there are no solutions. Talking to each other is always the way forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem that I anticipate in the debate coming from the Conservatives today is that they will axe the facts throughout. At the end of the day, I think it does a great disservice to Canadians.

I put this out to the member across the way. I have had a difficult time trying to get a Conservative member of Parliament to actually debate this issue with me, whether in Ottawa or in Winnipeg at any public school. I would welcome any member of the Conservative caucus to debate me on this issue, on the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax, any day if they had the courage to do so. However, I suspect not one of them will take me up on that. If the Conservative Party is so confident of its policy position, why is it scared to actually have a public debate on the issue?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Well, Mr. Speaker, that was incredible. The reason it is incredible is that the member is talking about people going to public schools in his riding, which he is probably afraid to lose in the next election, and talking about this issue. We want the first ministers of this country, the people elected by our citizens. There is only one taxpayer after all. We want them to get together and show leadership. Leadership starts with the Prime Minister calling a meeting.

We will debate this any time. My goodness, the Leader of the Opposition has been out at rallies, bringing in thousands of people right across the country, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, talking about this issue. Seventy per cent of Canadians and seven out of 10 premiers agree with us on this. Let us get the job done.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of considerable climate change and have led to significant increases in the price of vegetables, grains and fruit in recent years. The whole point of the carbon tax is to lower greenhouse gas emissions. That is one thing.

For another thing, Quebec decided to join the Western Climate Initiative, which is a kind of carbon exchange. California and British Columbia both participate. As a result, Quebec is unaffected by the carbon tax.

Would our Conservative colleagues be willing to join Quebec and British Columbia in the carbon exchange? It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep inflation in check, without monopolizing our time every day simply trying to reduce or eliminate a carbon tax that plays such a useful role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we are aiming for co-operation and dialogue in this motion. We want to include the premiers of all provinces, including Quebec. Therefore, let us just get to the table, have the discussion, show leadership at both the provincial and national levels, and show how this Confederation can actually work at a time of crisis for Canadians right across the country.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons, although it is sad that we are debating the same tired argument that the Conservatives have been bringing forward for the last two years. It is clear that the Conservative war on facts, evidence and science continues, even since the Harper era. Now it is math they disagree with.

The failed former leader of the Conservative Party from Regina—Qu'Appelle and the petro-puppet from Carleton are on this cover-up campaign with the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, who raised the price of gas on April 1 by more than the price on pollution. By the way, that price increase did not include any type of rebate, so it is clear why the Conservatives are here and who they are here for. It is not for Canadians or to stand up for affordability; it is to play a role in the cover-up campaign for the Premier of Alberta and to defend the greedy corporate interests of big oil and gas giants, as they always have.

Nothing changes with the Conservative Party, but things are changing with our climate. In fact, March 2024 was the hottest March ever on record. Guess what, Mr. Speaker: February had the highest temperature and was the hottest February ever on record. January was the same. Actually, that has been the case for the last 10 consecutive months. Every single month has been a record-breaking month for temperature. The hottest year on record was 2023. Now, in 2024, it is only April and there are already wildfires burning. Last year, 5.7 million acres of Canadian forests burned down because of out-of-control wildfires, and the Conservative leader blamed it on arson, which we know is not the case. Climate change has dried our forests out and increased the severity of wildfires.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even still, the Conservative caucus of climate change deniers is heckling over there. I know Conservatives do not believe in climate change, but Canadians do; they demand that we stand up, lower our emissions and take a leading role on fighting climate change around the world.

If one does not believe in climate change, then one must believe in the amount of money these wildfires are costing Canadians. There was over $1.5 billion in economic losses last year just from wildfires and an incremental $700 million of insured losses. That does not include drought, floods, hurricanes, extreme weather or hyperfocused precipitation, as we have seen across this country.

Climate change is an existential threat to our economy, our livelihoods and our very lives, and the Conservatives want to ignore it. Who do they want to rely on for insight, for expertise and research? Our universities provide us with that insight. Last week, when 200 leading economists from across this country wrote an open letter in support of carbon pricing, a spokesperson for the Conservative leader, the petro-puppet from Carleton, called them “so-called ‘experts’”. I am sorry, but these are people who earned their degrees. They went to university, did the research and got a Ph.D. They are experts, not so-called experts. They are leading researchers in the field. This is coming from a guy who has never earned an honest red cent in his life. He has never contributed a dollar to our economy. This is the only job he has ever had, here in the House of Commons. It is pathetic coming from somebody with no expertise.

I would like to spend the rest of my time today reading into the record the open letter from the economists on the Canadian carbon pricing. This is not political rhetoric, a bumper sticker or a slogan that looks good on a hoodie. We are getting facts and evidence, irrefutable mathematics, from our experts.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time today with the member for Winnipeg North.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that everyone in this place will forgive me for the interruption, but as a member of Parliament, I believe that my work here does earn an honest red cent.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it is important for those of us here to have actually had jobs outside of politics, but he might want to rethink that, Mr. Speaker, and it is up to you to recommend on this.

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

I appreciate the hon. member's intervention in this. I will remind hon. members to be judicious in the words they choose, especially when speaking on the floor of the House and talking about other members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that under advisement.

I will continue now to read the open letter from economists on Canadian carbon pricing.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be great if I did not have to raise my voice and yell, but the Conservative members want to heckle, so I will continue to speak at a volume that will allow them to hear it. This open letter from economists on Canadian carbon pricing was signed by over 200 leading experts. These are people who are doing research on a regular basis to determine what facts and evidence should be included in the political discourse.

The letter starts:

As economists from across Canada, we are concerned about the significant threats from climate change. We encourage governments to use economically sensible policies to reduce emissions at a low cost, address Canadians’ affordability concerns, maintain business competitiveness, and support Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Canada’s carbon-pricing policies do all those things.

The member for Carleton, the Conservative leader, might call them so-called experts, or he might even call them Liberals. That is not true, and that is not a fact. These are people who work in our universities, teach our students and conduct world-class research, and their facts and evidence ought to be read into the record. I am proud to do that today.

These economists refute five claims. The first Conservative claim is, “Carbon pricing won't reduce GHG emissions.” The open letter states: “What the evidence shows: Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches.” This was reiterated by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe just the other day, which is that they looked at other things, but they were all more expensive, so they are relying on the federal backstop program. Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches.

The open letter continues:

Since federal carbon pricing took effect in 2019, Canada’s GHG emissions have fallen by almost 8 percent...the Canadian Climate Institute shows that federal and provincial carbon pricing, for industries and consumers, is expected to account for almost half of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030.

That is basic economics and common sense.

The letter further states, “Carbon pricing is the lowest cost approach because it gives each person and business [in our communities] the flexibility to choose the best way to reduce their carbon footprint. Other methods, such as direct regulations, tend to be more intrusive and inflexible, and cost more.”

One of the reasons that Conservatives around the world in other countries rely on carbon pricing is that it is a market-based instrument considered widely as a Conservative approach to lowering emissions.

Conservative claim number two is, “Carbon pricing drives up the cost of living and is a major cause of inflation.” This is totally false. The letter states, “What the evidence shows: Canadian carbon pricing has a negligible impact on overall inflation.”

The Conservatives can repeat their claims and their slogans all they want. That is not science. It is not evidence, It is not math. It is false. The letter continues, “The sharp increase in inflation between 2021 and 2023 was caused by several factors, mainly related to the COVID-19 pandemic...and the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on commodity prices.”

Just a few minutes ago, the petro-puppet from Carleton was standing in the House suggesting that the war in Ukraine did not cause any inflation in Canada. This is absolutely false. These forces are global, which is why the most advanced countries, whether they have a carbon price or not, experienced very similar inflation. Carbon pricing has caused less than one-twentieth of Canada's inflation in the past two years.

As well, 90% of the revenues generated are rebated back to households, which means that families receive more money in rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, particularly those with low and modest incomes.

The letter states, “Climate change, on the other hands, poses a real threat to Canadians' economic well-being...climate change will cost our economy at least $35 billion by 2030, and much more in future decades.” Again, this reiterates that this is an existential threat for Canadians and for our species on planet earth.

Conservative claim number three is, “It makes little sense to have both a carbon price and rebates.” The letter states, “The price-and-rebate approach provides an incentive to reduce carbon emissions...while maintaining most households’ overall purchasing power (due to the rebate).” Giving most back to families, through the Canada carbon rebate, carbon pricing revenues and rebates do not undermine the goal of the price. As well, there is still the incentive to reduce emissions. This is another Conservative claim debunked by expert economists.

Conservative claim number four is “Carbon pricing harms Canadian business competitiveness.” The letter states:

What the evidence shows: Canada’s carbon-pricing scheme is designed to help businesses reduce emissions at low cost, while competing in the emerging low-carbon global economy.

For large emitting sectors in most provinces—like oil, steel and cement—there is an “output-based” carbon pricing system. In effect, it means most large industries pay the carbon price only on the last 10-20 percent of their emissions. The lower-emitting firms pay less while higher-emitting firms pay more—creating a strong incentive for all firms to reduce emissions.

It is also important to highlight here that the vast majority of the oil and gas used in the agriculture sector, or 97% of it, is exempt from carbon pricing.

Conservative claim number five is, “Carbon pricing isn't necessary.” The letter states, “Here the critics are actually right. Canada could abandon carbon pricing and still hit our climate targets by using other types of regulations and subsidies—but it would be much more costly to do so” for businesses, our economy and for consumers.

The letter continues, “Unfortunately, the most vocal opponents of carbon pricing are not offering any alternative policies to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals.”

There are more than 200 Canadian economists who wrote a letter to the Conservative Party asking it to adjust some of its demands because they are not based on fact or evidence. If there is even one Canadian economist who disagrees with these 200 economists, I would ask Conservative members to bring their facts and evidence to the House and read them into the record because Canadians demand policies that are based on facts, evidence, science and research, not bumper stickers, slogans and overly repeated political rhetoric.

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

Before we go to questions and comments, I would remind members to use riding names when referring to others in the chamber. I know this has been brought up a number of times.

We should say the right. hon. Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. We want to make sure that we at least give people the correct title while speaking on the floor of this chamber.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Milton stated, “building highways doesn't fight climate change.” Does the member still stand by his anti-road building statement?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member just brought up a tweet that I put out a couple of years ago.

[An hon member]

Yes or no?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is yelling, “Yes or no?” right now at the top of his lungs.

I believe that building highways is not a way to fight climate change. It is true. We should find ways to rely more on active transportation, public transit and trains. In my community, we require both-direction, all-day GO train service, so a lot of people use their cars when they do not have to.

It is true that we need highways. It is true that we need roads, and we need more of them in Canada with our growing population, but that does not mean that highways should be used as a wedge or recommendation to fight climate change. Conservatives want to say when we build more highways, we get less gridlock and less carbon emissions, and that is proven to be false.

Yes, I stand by my statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the motion, it calls this a “carbon tax emergency”. We know the PBO and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have said that the carbon tax has about a 0.15% impact on inflation. It is about 15¢ on a $100 bag of groceries. The real emergency is the corporate greed emergency that is happening, the runaway corporate greed, but that is not being dealt with.

We keep hearing the word “emergency”. We saw the Liberals host a summit on auto theft. That is not an emergency; it is a serious issue. An emergency is the 42,000 people who have died from a toxic overdose. The government still has not convened a meeting with first ministers to deal with that. It is the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 19 and 59 in my home province of British Columbia. It is spreading across the country. There are skyrocketing deaths in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. However, the government has not even convened a summit on this crisis.

When will the government convene first ministers to deal with the health emergency? We have lost as many people as we did to COVID-19. The government spent less than 1% in response to the toxic drug overdose crisis than it did to COVID-19. When will it do that?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always proud to serve with the member for Courtenay—Alberni in the House. We have had many meetings together on harm reduction, on the toxic drug overdose crisis in Canada and on ways to support people who are suffering from addictions.

This morning, we announced that our government will be investing a further $500 million into youth mental health, which will include addictions supports. This is another occasion where we are faced with a war on evidence. The Conservative Party wants to suggest that safe supply and providing people with the tools necessary to fight their addictions and live another day is causing the overdose crisis and is causing the toxic drug supply, which are false.

I want to commend the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his leadership on this and many other issues. I am always proud to work with him. I would be grateful for an opportunity to sit down to discuss how we can take further action on ending the opioid crisis in Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech from the member for Milton. He said he would give us facts. He did not give us facts. He gave us people's opinions, void of any facts.

I am wondering if the member for Milton knows what the largest contributor to carbon is. Does he know it is the oceans? I am wondering whether the member for Milton knows what the levels of carbon in the air that we breathe are, what their targets are and what they need to be reduced to.

Could the member for Milton provide us with some real facts?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that member is one of the most vociferous climate change deniers in the House of Commons. He stands up to deny Canadians', humans', impact on climate change.

I read into the record the recommendations and the policy guidelines of people who do this work for a living. They are not their opinions. These are facts that have been uncovered by research and mathematics.

The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is approximately 350 parts per million. When it goes a lot higher than that, we have problems. Just like inside a greenhouse, plants consume carbon dioxide. That is something that a lot of Conservatives and climate change deniers will say is plant food. No, carbon dioxide is not plant food. It is part of the photosynthetic process.

The rhetoric that the oceans are responsible for more climate change than humans are is absolutely astonishing. It is that type of climate change denial, that type of fact-free rhetoric, that Canadians do not need in this debate.