Debates of April 9th, 2024

Advance Disclosure of Budget Measures

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

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. We will take a close look.

The hon. whip for the New Democratic Party.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the New Democratic Party may come back with some comments on this in the future.

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

I think there will be enough time for everyone to speak.

The hon. deputy House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, my comment is similar to the one made by my NDP colleague; if you would allow us the opportunity to do the same, it would be appreciated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague from the Bloc Québécois for this motion and this explanation. The Green Party will also want to submit its point of view at a later time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Victoria.

It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak, but I am deeply ashamed at the ignorance and failure of the Parliament of Canada and Canada's politicians from the provincial level up to deal with the greatest crisis we, as a civilization and people, have ever faced. I say that because wildfire season is officially under way in British Columbia. It began in Alberta in February, when northern Alberta was bringing back its firefighting crews. In northern Ontario, our firefighting crews are getting ready.

I am 61 years old. Some people might say I never grew up, and that is fair, but one thing in all my 61 years is that I always felt so much excitement every single spring because I thought of summer. This year when I talk with people about summer, they talk about fire season. This is the planet we are giving to our children. As a 61-year-old white guy with grey hair, I expect young people to look at us and ask what we did when the crisis came.

We know that the Conservatives ridiculed, laughed and snorted every time we talked about the climate crisis. However, climate crisis deniers are not just the ones who troll about it and ridicule and try to deny the science. We see other forms of climate denial, such as thinking that if one puts out enough press releases, somehow the planet will get better, or that big oil will continue to be allowed to destroy the planet but that somehow if we just keep giving it money it will somehow find a way to make increasing fossil fuel production net-zero, and we will all be better off.

We note that the Liberal government underspent by $15 billion on climate commitments. In the face of a climate catastrophe, the press releases went out. The money was promised but it was not spent. I mention this because, in order to bring a bit of reality to the conversation today, I want to bring a few facts about what is happening in the outside world.

This past month, Antarctica posted the single-biggest increase that has ever been recorded on the planet, a 38.5°C jump. A glaciologist, Professor Martin Siegert, stated that no one ever thought anything like this could ever happen: “It is extraordinary and a real concern. We are now having to wrestle with something that is completely unprecedented.” Another scientist has called it “simply “mind-boggling”. Furthermore, what we are seeing in the Atlantic over just the last 14 months are the highest temperatures ever recorded.

Of course people in the climate denial world will say that it is going to be life as normal; it will just be a little hotter and it will just be a little different. It is the problem of Lucretius, which is that nobody can anticipate a problem bigger than what they have seen in their lifetime, so we have no capacity to recognize the damage and the ongoing planetary breakdown that is happening. In 2023, there was the loss of global tree cover in the areas outside of the tropics like Brazil, where the trees are being hacked down. The fact is that Canada was responsible for the largest tree cover loss recorded, with a 24% loss in a single year. That is from our burning forests.

I would think that the Conservatives would have thought it would great to bring all our parliamentarians and provincial leaders together to talk about solutions to the crisis, but that is not what they care about. This is about a “gotcha” moment. There are a couple of things in the Conservative motion I am kind of interested in, but some of it I just find ridiculous. If this were going to be about “the ongoing carbon tax crisis and the financial burden it places on Canadians”, that would show leadership. It would show vision. It would show we are being adults and we care about our kids, but no, Conservatives do not want to talk about that. They are going to let our kids burn.

Then it is being said that we are going to bring our premiers in to talk about options of opting out of the carbon tax. Are we going to do that with the Doug Ford grifter government? Ontario was not paying the carbon tax until Doug Ford said, “Hey, you know what? We're going to get rid of cap and trade and then make every ordinary Ontarian pay a carbon tax.” Then he then turned around and asked, “Whoa, how come we have this carbon tax?” He said it was because of the bad Liberal government.

Do we seriously think that we are going to let a grifter such as Doug Ford come in and talk about how to deal with the climate crisis? This is a guy who, as soon as he was elected, went and ripped up all the EV charging stations and then realized, “Oh my God, Ontario wants to be an automotive superpower with EV. Someone is going to have to build those EV charging stations.”

Are we going to invite Danielle Smith, the conspiracy queen-in-chief? Alberta had a carbon tax. It was a made-in-Alberta solution. The NDP Alberta solution made a lot more sense than the Liberal solution ever did, because it was about taking money from pollution and reinvesting in business and in alternatives. The Notley government said that they needed to reduce emissions in Alberta. They wanted to get it down by, I think, 30 million tonnes by 2030, and the money from pollution was going to be reinvested. Even some of those big oil companies got backhanders on that if they were willing to commit to clean energy and alternatives. However, Danielle Smith came and ripped all that up, and then she kicked out $66 billion in clean energy projects strictly for ideology. There is no place on the planet where we can get more clean energy projects off the ground at the drop of a hat than in Alberta, but she did not want any of that. What do we have in Alberta now? Alberta has rolling blackouts in April. This is Canada's energy superpower, and she cannot even keep the power on. This is a failed-state approach.

The other thing is that Alberta is suffering a severe drought from the climate catastrophe, but we have not seen a single Conservative from Saskatchewan or Alberta get up and talk about how they are actually burning the province. Now they are saying that maybe they will get themselves this Athabasca pipeline to take water out of the already suffering, damaged Athabasca water system; however, that is not going to be shipped down to southern Alberta, because it is needed by big oil.

The issue here, and this is my problem with the Liberal carbon levy, is that the carbon tax was always a market solution. Therefore, we did not actually penalize the people who were burning our planet and knew they were doing it. I cannot go back and explain to working-class Joe back home that “Hey, you pay the money, then you get more back.” He will ask, “So, what does it do?” That is a good question. I will agree with the Conservatives on their motion that Canada is now 62nd out of 67 countries on the climate change performance index, but what they do not say is that the reason Canada is at the back of the pack is that we have never targeted those who are causing the emission increases.

The oil and gas sector never had any intention of lowering emissions; it never even tried. The intensity of creating oil in Canada today is higher than it was in 1990. When those in the sector talk about carbon capture and want us to give them billions for that, it is not to take it out of the atmosphere but so they can pump out more oil; it is about more fossil fuels. Alberta is responsible for close to 40% of Canada's emissions. Where does that come from? Is the average Albertan any more wasteful than the average Canadian anywhere else? No, it is coming out of one sector; that sector has not been doing its job, and now our planet is on fire. However, we do not see any willingness from the Liberals to actually take this on, and the Conservatives will take on anything except the fact that our planet is on fire and that we are at peak carbon.

The fact is that the emissions that are now being registered coming out of the oil sands are 6,000 times higher than registered. I come from mining country; if a mine was pumping emissions into the local river that were 6,000 times higher than allowed, there would be charges and arrests. If we were sold a product that had 6,000 times more risk to human health, something would be done. However, in Alberta, they have the Alberta Energy Regulator, which is basically an extension of Richie Rich Kruger and probably has an office down the hall.

Why am I going at them so hard? It is because they knew all along. They knew in the late 1950s of the simple science that increased carbon will create a situation where we will get greenhouse gas emissions.

The American Petroleum Institute did a study in 1982 that plotted out the timelines of what was going to be a slow-moving disaster. The study said that significant temperature changes were certain to occur by the year 2000, and this would lead to the eventual collapse of the Antarctic ice shelf—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the hon. member will be able to add to his remarks during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's comments just exemplify how out of touch both the NDP and the Liberals are with Canadians. People are struggling in our communities. I went door to door on the weekend in an area that I did not do that well in during the last election. The comment I was hearing from people is that they are ready to axe the tax. The tax is not having any impact except for taking money to pay for Canadians' needs out of their pocketbooks.

Does the hon. member recognize that what the NDP, Liberals and Bloc are supporting is a tax plan and not a climate plan?

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

Madam Speaker, can I just get a clarification? The member knocked on people's doors in British Columbia? The member was part of a government that brought in a provincial carbon tax. The member will not tell the truth when he is talking to people. He is going to axe the facts.

People in B.C. are not paying a federal carbon tax. How dumb does he think his constituents are? How dumb does he think people are if he goes door to door with such blatant misinformation? This is a guy who brought in a carbon tax, who is blaming a government for a carbon tax that British Columbians are not paying.

By the way, while B.C. burns, this is what we have to deal with in the climate-denying world of the Conservatives.

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

Madam Speaker, a new champion of carbon pricing just recently emerged. It is none other than Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, in a video from 2021 that recently resurfaced.

She said, “I do my family's taxes, so I know we got $808.50.... When I go back and look at what I spent...in carbon taxes, because I was working from home, I wasn't commuting, my gas bills were way down, and even the amount...that I paid on my home heating, because we're principally natural gas where I live, I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer. I think a lot of people would be of the view that, if you're going to implement some kind of carbon or revenue-neutral carbon pricing, that is probably not a bad way of doing it.”

Those are not my words. Those are Danielle Smith's words from 2021.

Can the member for Timmins—James Bay explain to the House why he thinks Danielle Smith has done a complete about-face on this issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to say I would be careful in believing anything Danielle Smith said. They want to bring her to have a premiers' conference. This is the woman who said cigarette smoking was good for people. No wonder she thinks burning the planet is good for us too, while Alberta dies in drought and she cannot keep the power on.

Would we have Danielle Smith, the conspiracy queen of North America, come and talk about carbon and the carbon crisis? My God, it is bad enough for my poor friends in Alberta. They cannot even keep the lights on in the energy superpower province, because she has chased out all the clean energy. She believes in smoking. I cannot even keep track of where Danielle Smith goes on a given day with the conspiracy claims she makes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with a brief question.

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to be brief when the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is a voice of conscience in this place. He is the only person in days, weeks, maybe months, besides perhaps myself and the hon. member for Victoria, who speaks to the fact that the climate crisis threatens the future of our children, our grandchildren and civilization itself. It is in our hands to make a difference early.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is right. The government underspent by $15 billion on climate action and overspent by an obscene $34 billion to build the Trans Mountain pipeline that we do not want.

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

Madam Speaker, we gave $31 billion to big oil, so companies could take unrefined bitumen; they would not even bother to process it in Canada. It is the dirtiest product on the planet, and we are going to have the taxpayers pay to ship it. Meanwhile, the Conservatives cheer it on and the Liberals say it is going to be good because they will somehow lower our emissions. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels without killing the future of our children. Those are the facts.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives just said that Canada does not have an industrial carbon price. He is either ignorant about carbon tax policy or intentionally misleading the public. He should know that Canada's industrial carbon pricing system exists. The federal carbon pricing benchmark exists, and it is critically important because it sets expectations for how provincial and territorial governments are covering fuels and large emitters, as well as how these programs must be designed to meet federal minimum standards. Therefore, the leader of the Conservatives is intentionally misleading Canadians or does not understand the policy that he wants to run an election on.

If he did even the quickest Google search, he would see the recent report entitled “Industrial carbon pricing the top driver of emissions reductions”; The Globe and Mail article, “Industrial carbon price more effective to reduce greenhouse gases than consumer policy”; or the CBC report, “Industrial carbon pricing has three times the impact on emissions as consumer carbon tax”.

If the Leader of the Opposition had done his research, he would know that the federal minimum standard for industrial carbon pricing policy is one of the most critical climate policies in Canada. It has been one of the policies that has reduced emissions the most in Canada, and it actually needs to be strengthened. We could close the loopholes and make an even more robust policy. The Leader of the Opposition not only refused to answer whether he would scrap it; he said that it does not exist. The industrial carbon price exists. Climate change exists.

Fighting the climate crisis is not optional. Canadians are still reeling from the impacts of last year's record-breaking wildfire season; the record-breaking heat dome; and the atmospheric rivers that washed away whole communities, roads, homes and farms. British Columbians are still experiencing a multi-year drought with extreme flooding at the same time. We are bracing for another record-breaking wildfire season. If they care about people, families, communities, workers, farmers, the land, the air, the water, our food and our homes, and if they care about what Canadians hold most dear, fighting the climate crisis is not optional. We will only get it done if we bring people together and if we unite people instead of dividing them.

Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservatives seems to think it is optional. He has no climate plan. He wants to ignore the climate crisis. I should note that, unlike many of his Conservative MPs, who voted against a resolution acknowledging that climate change is real in 2021, the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged the existence of climate change; he just opposes any solutions that would address it. He collects huge donations from oil and gas CEOs and then becomes their puppet, their cheerleader and their champion. Conservatives have absolutely no climate plan, and they cannot even agree that the climate crisis is real.

However, while the Leader of the Opposition wants to ignore the climate crisis, the Prime Minister wants to use it to divide Canadians. He does not see fighting the climate crisis as an opportunity to unite people to take on this existential crisis. Instead, he uses it as a political wedge. He tried to buy votes with exemptions for Atlantic Canadians. He treated carbon pricing as the be-all and end-all of climate policy, so that when the Liberals bought a pipeline, missed targets and broke climate policies, they could present it as proof of their climate credibility. However, at the same time, the Liberals undermine their own policy, giving exemptions to the biggest polluters.

Suncor gets to pay 14 times less for its pollution. The Liberals designed a carbon pricing system where the carbon price for everyday Canadians is 14 times higher compared with the carbon price for Suncor. It is not surprising when we remember that the Liberals continue to hand out billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies to oil and gas CEOs, who are making record profits. These are the same companies whose corporate greed has driven up costs and that are gouging Canadians as they struggle to make ends meet.

While Canadians are struggling, corporate profits are at an all-time high, and rich CEOs are making more money than ever. The Liberals keep giving these CEOs more and more public money, sometimes under the guise of helping them clean up the environmental mess they have made.

The Conservatives are even cosier with CEOs. Last year, dozens of oil and gas CEOs flocked to the Leader of the Opposition's fundraisers. At one of these events in Banff, the co-founder of Pathways Alliance, along with current and former oil sands CEOs, who have a long documented history of climate policy obstruction, donated thousands of dollars to the leader of the Conservative Party. These CEOs did this while they were raking in record profits, while they campaigning across the country with misleading advertising to greenwash the oil sands and while continuing to increase their emissions.

It seems like the corporate-controlled Conservatives are once again listening to their CEO masters, I mean donors, and intend to scrap the industrial carbon tax to let big polluters pollute for free. The Conservatives are letting the CEOs, the donors, off the hook and leaving Canadians to deal with the devastating impacts of the climate crisis, with the excruciating impacts of corporate greed are gouging Canadians, who are struggling, and burning the planet.

This motion talks about the idea of the Prime Minister bringing together premiers and provinces in the spirit of collaboration to discuss carbon pricing, and doing this to talk about critical issues, like climate policy and the cost of living crisis. This would be worthy of support.

The language of the motion is misleading. I have a good faith amendment that will hopefully be considered by the official opposition. I heard the Bloc amendment, which I thought was similarly a good faith amendment. I was disappointed to see the Conservatives unable to accept a good faith effort to bring the provinces into a discussion about the climate crisis, about the cost of living crisis. If the Conservatives want to actually have this conversation, if they are genuine in their desire for the provinces and the federal government to come together to talk about the issues facing Canadians, then I hope they will consider our motion.

I move that the motion be amended by replacing paragraph (a) with the following: (a) the industrial and consumer carbon tax and the ongoing cost of living crisis felt by all Canadians; and replacing paragraph (b) with the following: (b) the April 1 carbon tax increase.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf.

Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the deputy whip if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer is no.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no consent. Pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the best way to encourage consumers to reduce carbon emissions is to give them alternatives, such as the SkyTrain in metro Vancouver, which I do not have to tell my colleague from British Columbia runs on clean, British Columbia-produced hydroelectricity.

The best way is not to have an ever-increasing tax regime that makes life so much more difficult for people, for example people who drive in rural British Columbia, who do not have an alternative to driving.

Would the member agree that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is simply to give Canadians good alternatives?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians absolutely deserve affordable, low-carbon alternatives. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party refuses to actually propose credible climate policy that would provide Canadians with those affordable, low-carbon alternatives. It is mind-boggling that the Leader of the Opposition continues to go out campaigning to scrap a policy without presenting how he would fill the emissions reduction gap, make life more affordable for Canadians and make a more climate-safe future for people now and future generations.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois is not against federal-provincial discussions to establish policies that meet everyone's needs. However, the motion before us today calls for the meeting to establish “plans for provinces to opt-out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other responsible ideas to lower emissions”. Such plans already exist. The federal carbon pricing system contains an opt-out provision that is available to all provinces.

Since all provinces may opt out from carbon pricing as long as they work to protect the environment, does my esteemed colleague not think that it would be far more useful to hold a federal-provincial meeting to discuss issues that the provinces would like to be able to opt out of, such as housing and health?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is lovely to hear people combatting the misinformation that comes out of the Conservative Party.

We know that provinces have the option to present an alternative system, and provinces have done that. We see that in Quebec. We see that in British Columbia. We see these provinces also reducing their emissions and having incredible plans when it comes to electric vehicles, hydroelectricity and renewable energy. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to mislead Canadians with this rhetoric that we hear from them not only every day in the House but also when they go to rallies across the country.

I would love to see emergency debates on the critical issues that are facing Canadians, including not only the climate crisis, but also housing, the toxic drug supply and the cost of living crisis. We need to bring provinces and the federal government together to talk about these issues. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives have done this in such a way.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the member's exchange with my Conservative colleague to be very interesting because he was basically saying to just give more options. It reminds me of the Premier of Saskatchewan, when he came before committee on March 27. The Canadian Press summed it up perfectly when it wrote, “Big polluters shouldn’t be punished financially—they should just emit less.”

It is as though there are no incentives required. We just need tell them to do it, and I am sure they will do it. Does that sound like a plan to this member, when Conservatives get up to say that they just need more options, that companies should just emit less?

Does that sound like something, to this member, that is going to resonate and actually impact our marketplace?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we absolutely need a strong industrial carbon price, and we need strong regulations to make sure that these big polluters cannot pollute for free. The Conservatives are clearly unwilling to stand up to their corporate donors.

That said, the Liberals also have been giving out billions of dollars to the same companies. They have watered down key climate policies, such as the industrial carbon price, the emissions cap, clean fuel regulations and clean electricity regulations. We need strong climate policy to hold these corporations to account.