Debates of June 13th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing

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

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

Record of the Proceedings of the House

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to offer some very brief comments in response to the question of privilege raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre on June 6.

There is a tradition in this House that when a member apologizes, the House accepts this apology, whether people feel it is sincere or not, and the member for Saskatoon West has apologized. What I believe to be unresolved on the issue is the inappropriate changing of Hansard to try to erase what the member for Saskatoon West said from the official record. There is an old saying that the cover-up was worse than the crime, and I believe that the change made in Hansard by the member is completely inappropriate and goes beyond the scope of permitted changes.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 1228, states, “Members may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription but may not make material changes to the meaning of what was said in the House.”

The change that the member for Saskatoon West made to the blues goes entirely against this practice. The edit made material change to the meaning of what the member said. While it was appropriate for the member to apologize, it was not appropriate for him to try to cover up what he said. I ask that the Speaker consider this point.

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

I thank the hon. member for that.

I want to remind colleagues that, when we have responses to points of order or whatever, it is always a courtesy to the members who are speaking to bring these things up between speeches. Therefore, I would ask that the next time we wait until after the speech, or maybe after questions and comments, to do those things.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I was so rudely interrupted without precedent, I was getting to the point about the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his good nature once again being besmirched by the government.

Certainly, we know that on June 3, the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before the finance committee to say, “the government has [an] economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself.... We've seen that—staff in my office—but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.”

This is another cover-up from the costly coalition. It is no surprise to Canadians that the government wants to keep its dirty laundry hidden. This is something it does regularly, to me and all Canadians. It does not want Canadians to know the true cost of the carbon tax. Why? It is because it is a tax on everything. It is causing hardship, misery and a constant state of anxiety for Canadians, who are simply trying to live their lives and put food on the table.

In the wonderful place in and around Truro in Cumberland—Colchester, which I represent, the Colchester Food Bank served 482 more households this May than it did in January 2023. It is mind-boggling when we think about it, but what do we hear from the caustic coalition? Yes, I did say “caustic”, not “costly”, but they are equally appropriate. We hear that another $1,800 to $2,000 per household is nothing, that they should not worry about it. Food banks across Nova Scotia saw a 27% increase in visits in 2023. Last winter, it was reported that the food bank in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, where the housing minister lives, was busier than it has ever been. What is certainly mind-boggling is that we get calls from the member for Central Nova's constituency frequently, and we have to explain to them why their cost of living is much greater than it is.

The CBC reported that folks in Louisbourg, many of whom are seniors, have been going days and even weeks without a proper meal, and some children have not been attending school because they do not have food. The members opposite would just say that they would create another program to feed the children for them. Why do we not give their parents an appropriate job, an appropriate paycheque, stop taking money out of every pocket that they have and let them feed their own kids? What a common-sense idea.

Of the Canadians who went to the food bank last year, 61% were first time users. They are real people, and we know they deserve better. We also know that Canada's Food Price Report in 2023, from Dalhousie University, reported that a family of four would see their grocery bills rise by $700 this year. Perhaps the costly coalition does not think that is a lot of money, but I grew up in a trailer park, in very humble circumstances. As my dad would say to me, and I know this is not proper grammar, “Son, those 20 dollarses do not grow on trees.” We certainly know that they do not; it would be great if they did.

We know that one in five Canadians is out of money, skipping meals or accessing charities, such as food banks, for their basic needs. Two million Canadians visited a food bank in a single month last year and, very sadly, one-third of them were children.

We also know that the members of the costly coalition are the kings and queens of cover-up. Where should we start? Interestingly, it would seem that maybe it is an accident that they are covering up or forgetting things. A former minister testified about the green slush fund and had a sense of dementia. Everybody who testified there could not remember anything. It appears that this is a foundational feature of the costly coalition, not a glitch; this is how it wants things to be.

There are cover-ups such as the top secret lab in Winnipeg. We had to have four orders of Parliament, which were all denied, to produce some documents.

We had the president of PHAC brought here, in front of the bar, to be embarrassed in front of all Canadians.

We talked a bit about the green slush fund. We know that the chair of the green slush fund approved $200,000 to her own company. That is absolutely shocking.

Of the projects that were approved, 10% were ineligible. In 90 cases, reporting $76 million of funding, these projects did not even qualify for funding. It is not shocking, but we see this over and over again.

We hear about meddling in our elections. We hear from NSICOP that there are members of Parliament who have befriended other governments. This is, of course, another cover-up that we are trying to allow Canadians to see.

In summary, what do we see? We see, again, a cover-up and a costly coalition that is costing Canadians right out of their lives. They are unable to afford their basic necessities of food, shelter and, in many cases, of course, in the rural area where we live, gasoline for their vehicles to even get to work. We hear cases where people are taking on two and three jobs to try to pay their bills. Of course, with the coalition that allows criminals to go free, they lose their car. What happens then is they have to take on another job to pay for that car.

It is time the truth were told; it is time it became known that the carbon tax costs this country billions of dollars. It is time for the Minister of the Environment to resign.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I found the member opposite's speech interesting, and he spoke about everyday people in his riding.

Was he thinking about those everyday people while he was dining in London, England, having $1,800 worth of champagne, eating porterhouse steak and chateaubriand, on a trip that cost over $7,000 and was paid for by the Canadians for Affordable Energy? We should not let that name fool us. It is a group that advocates against pricing pollution.

While he was sipping on champagne, were they working on the motion to ensure that they make pollution free again and that Canadians are on the hook to deal with climate change on their own?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the cabinet retreats that the member opposite's government takes at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, we know that not a dime of taxpayer money was spent on that trip. It was a very important trip to understand the U.K. point of view, which is much farther ahead of us with respect to reversing its changes on carbon tax, and to have the incredible opportunity to meet the Hon. Tony Abbott, who also fought a carbon tax election.

It is no surprise that when Australians were running out of money, as Canadians are, Tony Abbott won that election handily, as we expect to happen here as soon as the frightful and running-scared coalition is able to call an election in this country. We know that, when the carbon tax election comes along, it will be no problem for the Conservatives to have power in Canada and reverse the incredible, costly and ridiculous charges that the government has foisted on Canadians now for nine long years.

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

Mr. Speaker, a journalist from The Canadian Press published an article on March 26 about an open letter on the carbon tax signed by 165 Canadian economics professors. The letter states the following:

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.

In the article, the journalist says the following:

According to the director of the department of economics at Université Laval, Stephen Gordon, economists are “almost unanimous” that carbon pricing is the best way to fight climate change.

He then adds, citing the content of the letter, and look at how wonderful it is:

“Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches”, according to the economists, who say “that is...common sense”.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, realistically, we need to focus on all this talk about the need for an affordable change to protect the climate. When Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or keep a roof over their heads, the plan is not affordable for Canadians.

As I said during my speech, before I was so rudely interrupted, we know, clearly, that Canadians are no longer able to do those things. When one is not able to eat, house oneself or keep the heat on in the winter, it becomes an unbearable prospect. Should I look at saving the climate, or should I feed my family? I know from the Canadians I hear from every day that they need to choose to eat first.

What we will do on this side of the House is to have a technological plan to fight climate change. That will be significantly better. It will support Canadian businesses, which will employ more people and bring in more tax revenue. This will give us the ability to look forward into the future to say this is how we need to do things. It is not about continuing to take money out of the pocket of Canadians and give it to the green slush fund so that the Liberals can give it to their friends and waste millions more dollars. It is an easy prospect, and an easy choice for Canadians to make, to get the minister of the environment to resign.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to be quick.

I know that the member and I have a fairly different perspective, but I agree that a lot of people are struggling right now. I hear that in my riding. I also represent a rural riding and understand that transportation is a challenge, and an important one, that I think could be addressed in a lot of different ways.

I also am aware of how much money the oil and gas companies are getting. I looked it up: They made $63 billion in profits in 2022, while oil prices soared. The reality is that they are seeing a bigger profit than they have in a long time. We can talk about tax. I am happy to have that discussion, but I think it is also important to talk about price gouging. Has the member spent any time actually doing some research into that aspect of this concern?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to live in the member's part of the world, North Island—Powell River and Comox. I am not sure if it is exactly in that riding. I also know that the people of that area of this great country are not dissimilar from the folks I now represent in Nova Scotia, in the sense that they cannot afford $1,800 a month coming out of their pocket and a $30.5- billion hit to this economy. I know they cannot afford that.

I know that the member is also getting the same emails and calls from people who cannot put food on the table every single day, just as we are here on this side of the House. Therefore, again, let us have a resignation from the minister of the environment.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, time and time again despite its promises, the reality of what is actually happening here in Ottawa is the polar opposite. Before the Prime Minister came into office, he said he was going to have the most transparent and accountable government Canadians had ever seen. Fast-forward nine years, and it has never been worse. The open-by-default promise the Prime Minister made is blown and completely decimated.

Here we are again, with months and months of a continued, in this case, carbon tax, cover-up, where the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has been gagged. He is not able to provide to the public, not only the House but all Canadians, the real numbers and the real facts on the impacts and the proof of the negative impacts of the carbon tax plan currently under way and set to expand significantly and make life even more unaffordable in the coming years.

We see the reality on the ground every day, regardless of what part of the country someone comes from. Food bank use has skyrocketed; two million Canadians are using a food bank in one month. Even with the increase so bad, it is expected that a million more visits will be made to food banks in Canada this year alone. Canadians are going to pay $700 more on their grocery bill in 2024. Every metric with respect to trying to make life more affordable, to give Canadians some relief, is getting worse, not better, the longer the Liberals are in office.

Here are the games the Liberals tried to play and failed miserably on today. For months, we have called on the Liberals to allow the Parliamentary Budget Officer to table the full report that he has been gagged about. He cannot speak about it. He cannot make it public. He cannot show Canadians the facts we all know on the ground but that would be proven through the work that he has done.

Just as we started to debate our opposition motion on document production, which would order the government to release the full report and show all the homework today, the Liberals played a game. They tabled, to the CBC of all places, spreadsheets, bits and parts of the report, in an attempt to say, “Here you go; here's the information.”

Like everything with the Prime Minister, and everything that the Liberals do these days, propped up of course by the NDP, we cannot trust the Liberals, and rightfully so. They have earned that reputation after nine years here in Ottawa.

What the data has shown so far today confirmed what Conservatives have been saying all along and what millions of Canadians are feeling in their communities in the past couple of years. The government plans to quadruple the carbon tax on the price of gas and diesel in the coming years to 61¢ a litre, with the first carbon tax, the second carbon tax being brought in, and of course the tax they taxed with GST as well.

The report and the numbers that we have seen so far today show just how devastating it will be. There will be a $30-billion hit to the Canadian economy in the coming years. It is a massive hit to our GDP, our economic growth, our potential and our engine that is already stalling under the current NDP-Liberal regime.

What does that mean? Every Canadian family, with the Liberal carbon tax plan, not just at the rates that they are at but with the plan to drastically increase them, will be hit by $1,800 per year just from the carbon tax. This is at a time when Canadians are already hurting, at a time when our federal deficits are endless, with no plans to balance the budget, and at a time when Canadians desperately need more houses but fewer houses are getting built. Everything the Liberals touch is broken. Everything they touch gets worse. The more solutions and photo ops they claim to do, the worse it gets for Canadians.

Here we go. The government has known for months just how devastating the carbon tax is, and for months it has just blocked it from even being talked about. They gag the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They claim the carbon tax is so great and people are further ahead after all the carbon tax money the government collects is redistributed.

If it is so true and if that is correct, why are the Liberals hiding the report? Why do they not table the full documentation with the report and everything included, not just the morning of? Finally, when they get backed into a corner, when they know they have to do something, they do not do the right thing and produce everything; they sliver off something and give it to the CBC the morning of and try to say that their work is done.

We see the first part. We see the $30-billion-a-year hole it is going to blow in our GDP and in our Canadian economy when the carbon tax gets even larger on the price of gas and on home heating, driving up the cost of everything. It is endless how much the carbon tax impacts Canadians: the price of gas for families to go around on their own and the price of diesel for trucking companies to transport food, furniture, goods and supplies. The carbon tax is driving up the cost there as well. In aviation, there is a carbon tax on plane fuel, and airlines use tens of billions of litres. The government is driving up the cost of every mode of transportation and driving up the cost of living.

Therefore we need full accountability, not the game the Liberals tried to play today of tabling something minutes after debate started and saying that it is enough. It is not enough. Canadians are sick and tired of the games the Liberals play. They were sick and tired when the Prime Minister bragged about the line “open by default” and said that the government would just share all the information and let the chips lie down. Now the government is blocking.

I have never seen this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has a report and would like to make it public. He has both hands tied behind his back, and backbench Liberal MPs are taking shots at him. There is a report that can vindicate the good, independent work that this public servant is doing. The Liberal government has gagged him, and then it played the game this morning of tabling only selective pieces: some Excel spreadsheets and numbers, not the full picture.

It is important that Canadians see the full report, not only the report or the numbers that the Liberals tried to show today. They need to show their homework. They need to provide their sources. The Parliamentary Budget Officer needs the ability to show the work that he did and how he got to the numbers showing just how devastating the carbon tax is, the economic vandalism that is going to be further exacerbated the more the carbon tax goes up.

On this side, we are going to be very clear. The entire House, the Bloc, the NDP, the Greens, the Liberals and everybody must allow full transparency, when it comes to the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the report, so in my remaining time I would like to move an amendment, just so we are clear to Canadians and in the vote that will be taking place this evening.

I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “provided that it” with the following: “, together with any bilingual memoranda or other briefing materials prepared in relation to this analysis, provided that these documents”.

It is time for full transparency. It is time for all of the information. Allow the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be ungagged and show all of his homework, and let Canadians see just how devastating life is after the carbon tax and after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

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

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 House leader if he consents to this amendment being moved.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the political games that the government has been playing today, I believe that this amendment is entirely relevant and advisable. I therefore agree to my colleague's moving the amendment.

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about transparency, so I am wondering whether he will be transparent with the House and Canadians on how Conservatives will address climate change.

The Conservatives' slogan about technology does not provide any details. How are they going to actually support Canadians in dealing with climate change? How are they going to invest in communities to make them more resilient? Can they be specific?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take our Conservative slogan of “technology, not taxes” any day of the week over the member's slogan of “Boo hoo, get over it”. I will not take any lectures from her on slogans and how that is working for her.

To the question at hand of what we have been very clear on, a number of clean-energy projects have been proposed across this country, but because of red tape by the government specifically, they have been withdrawn. In Nova Scotia, for example, a tidal energy company wanted to bring forward projects that would create jobs and clean energy, and have an impact in reducing our emissions.

What did it say? It said there is so much red tape, so much confusion and so many delays. I think it is a testament that the government could not organize a two-car parade, as we would say back home. The company cancelled its project. When it comes to nuclear and clean energy projects right across this country, a number of companies are backing out.

Conservatives will get rid of the red tape and allow investment to move ahead, not tax Canadians with a carbon tax that does nothing to address climate change.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk a bit about history. In 1904, Wilfrid Laurier said that “the 20th century shall be the century of Canada”. While that could be true, what is clear is that the 21st century is the century of Quebec. Each Quebecker produces 2.5 times less greenhouse gas emissions than an Ontarian, six times less than an Albertan and seven times less than an individual in Saskatchewan.

In a world where polluting is expensive and protecting the environment pays, Quebec is the new Klondike. By trying to prolong the oil and gas heyday of the 20th century a few years longer, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to stop Quebec from enjoying its comparative advantage.

My question for the Conservatives is this: Do you know what climate change means? Do you know that the carbon tax does not exist in Quebec?

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

I would remind the member that she must address her comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about the Bloc Québécois member who just spoke is her support of the carbon tax over and over again, when she represents the most northern riding in the province of Quebec. If we look at the chart right now on aviation gasoline and aviation turbo fuel, we see that her own constituents require tens of millions of litres in northern Quebec for medical appointments, for work, for everything, and the government is adding, with zero in rebates for the companies, millions and millions of dollars to the cost of flying back and forth to many remote communities in the member's riding.

The member has no problem with jacking up the tax or with zero rebates. She is a Bloc Québécois, separatist MP who loves sending more money to Ottawa and quadrupling the current rates in many cases. Where the Bloc stands or does not stand now I find absolutely fascinating. What does it even stand for anymore? It is certainly not the residents in northern Quebec.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about how Canadians cannot trust the Liberals, and I will not argue with that of course, but I am wondering how he expects Canadians to trust the Conservatives.

The member ran on a price on pollution in the last election. He talks about affordability but voted against dental care, pharmacare and a children's school lunch program. He is the same member who is in a party whose leader refuses to get top security clearance so he can deal with foreign interference.

The member talks about how Canadians cannot trust the Liberals. Believe me, I also wonder how they can trust the Liberals, but how on earth can Canadians be expected to trust the Conservatives?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my favourite part of speeches is when the NDP does questions and comments.

Here is the thing: New Democrats do not trust the Liberals, but they are going to prop them up for four years and keep them in office. The hypocrisy of what they say makes no sense.

If the member is so tough and does not trust the Liberals, and they are doing such wrong, bad, terrible things, they can call the election and let Canadians decide. However, that member will not do that because she knows, like many in her caucus, the response they are getting on the ground for propping the Prime Minister up, even when they do not trust him, and for voting confidence, voting for the budget and voting for these cover-ups that happen at committee and here in the House.

I cannot wait for the next election, and neither can millions of Canadians. The NDP is the fourth party, and trust me, it is going to have an even smaller corner after the next election because Canadians do not trust them anymore either.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Correctional Service of Canada; the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, Housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to rise in the House, this most honourable House, and it is wonderful to see so many of my colleagues here this afternoon.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, from the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are here in the House debating the important issue of climate change, what that means for the environment, for Canada's environment and for the world, as well as what that means for our economy and where our economy is going. On this side of the House, we have made decisions on where the economy should be going and the investments that we need to make. We have made those critical investments in areas such as dental care, pharmacare, and a national early learning and child care program, which, in the province of Ontario, will bring in, on average, $10-a-day day care by September 2025. There is also the national school food program. These are investments that are critical, needed and wanted by the residents in all our ridings. On the dental care side, we have seen that over 200,000 seniors have already gone to visit a dental care provider.

On the economic front, there are investment tax credits to continue to build our economy. There are the strategic investments in the auto sector, where we have seen over $50 billion of foreign direct investment come into the Canadian economy for all provinces. There are the investments in Saskatchewan by BHP in potash and Dow Chemical in Alberta. These are multi-billion dollar investments that are powering our economy forward thanks to the know-how of the wonderful residents we get to represent. It is thanks to their generous and entrepreneurial spirits.

That is how we confront the issue of climate change. The opposition party members like to bury their heads in the sand and say that climate change does not exist. I wonder what result we would get if we did a poll on the other side and asked them if climate change was a man-made cause. We need to address climate change.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!