Debates of June 13th, 2024

Countering Foreign Interference Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the penultimate Thursday question.

I am just wondering if the government House leader could use this occasion to inform the House as to what may be the business for the rest of this week and into next week.

We heard some very helpful suggestions this week. If the government is telling the truth about its middle-class, working Canadian tax hike on the change to the capital gains inclusion rate, will it, next week, immediately table legislation to protect the bottom 99.87% of Canadians, who it claims will not be affected by this tax?

We would like the Liberals to enshrine that in law and to put the legislation where their rhetoric is. We would immediately fast-track that legislation once they do that. If they do not want to do it by income bracket and protect the 99.87% of Canadians, they could do it by profession. They could exempt plumbers, electricians, carpenters, farmers and fishermen, any one of the trades that they mentioned this week.

Will the Liberal government take us up on our challenge and enshrine into law that protection from this capital gains tax hike? What other legislation will it bring forward next week?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought, for once, we were going to get away without a preamble, but we had a lot of amble there, a lot of post-amble.

I can assure my hon. friend that the law that is coming this fall would protect every single Canadian who draws their income from a paycheque, and 0.13% of Canadians would pay a modest amount of additional tax on capital gains over a quarter of a million dollars garnered in a single year.

Tax fairness not only will be written into the law, but also will continue to be the thing we talk about in the House.

Tomorrow, we will complete the report stage study of Bill C-40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act, which is also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

I would like to request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.

Our priorities next week will be to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, and second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. We will also give priority to other important bills, namely third reading of the aforementioned Bill C-40 and report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Finally, there have been discussions amongst the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Christine Ivory as Parliamentary Librarian, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), be deemed adopted.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.

House of Commons

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons' “Report to Canadians 2024”.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

I would like to start by setting the record straight. Pollution pricing is a key tool for fighting climate change and supporting Canadians.

Canadians know climate change is a real and serious threat to all of us. They have asked governments across the country to take action and to do our part to reduce the carbon pollution that is causing climate change. They also recognize that climate action needs to work with the economy, both to keep life affordable and to support the development of clean technologies here at home and to export around the globe.

Canada, alongside other international partners, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, the Republic of Korea and many others, recognizes carbon pricing is a powerful tool to achieve all these goals. The World Bank confirmed that there are now 75 carbon pricing instruments in place worldwide at the national and subnational levels.

This is not surprising. As economists and experts keep telling us, carbon pricing is the lowest cost and most effective tool to reduce carbon pollution. A price on pollution sends a signal across the economy. Each individual and business integrates that signal into their day-to-day decisions, finding ways to pollute less, so they can save money. The choice of when and how to act is left up to them. That is what makes carbon pricing so powerful.

Canada's approach to pricing pollution is flexible. Provinces and territories can adopt their own system if it meets minimum national standards. It was set up that way in recognition of the fact that Quebec and British Columba have had their own mechanism for over a decade. In provinces and territories that do not have a price on pollution, the federal system applies.

The federal pollution pricing system is revenue neutral. All revenue is returned to the provinces and territories where it was collected. In provinces where pollution pricing applies, most of the revenue is returned to Canadians via the carbon rebate four times a year. For eight out of 10 households in Canada, the rebate is more than the carbon tax they pay.

This rebate is designed to benefit lower- and middle-income families the most. The exact payment depends on the number of people in the household and which province they live in. A family of four in Alberta, for example, will receive a Canada carbon rebate of $1,800 this year, and more if they live in a rural community. The price signal on carbon pollution still works even though money goes back to households because of how the Canada carbon rebate is designed. Spending more on fossil fuels does not give someone a larger rebate. Households get their Canada carbon rebates regardless of how many cars they have, how they heat their home and how they get to work.

If people make an effort to use less fossil fuel by carpooling, for example, driving an electric vehicle or installing a heat pump in their home, every dollar saved goes back into their pockets. They still get the incentive. People who do not see the short-term importance of transitioning to clean energy or using less fossil fuel are still protected from the effects of the cost of living because the climate action incentive payment gives back more to most Canadian families than they pay.

Our approach to pollution pricing is working. Estimates show that pollution pricing contributes roughly one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved by Canada's emissions reduction plan in 2030.

Putting a price on pollution is the simplest and most effective way to fight climate change. It encourages entrepreneurs to find innovative solutions, invest in clean technologies and transition to renewable energy. Clean energy and low-emission technologies are among the greatest opportunities of our time.

Canada's greenhouse gas offset credit system is also an important part of our pollution pricing mechanism, providing economic opportunities for municipalities, indigenous communities, farmers and project proponents. This encourages them to undertake innovative projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs and participate in the carbon credit market.

While other tools like regulations and incentives have an important role to play in Canada's climate plan, without carbon pricing, any climate plan will be more expensive and will miss opportunities for innovation. A price on carbon pollution is cheaper than other options, supports affordability and creates new markets for the new technologies we need.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the worst growth of income than any Prime Minister since the Great Depression in the 1930s under the Liberal-NDP coalition. Of the 40 advanced countries in the OECD, Canada is projected to have the worst growth for the next three decades.

Does the member not recognize that their policies, their tax policies and their governance is destroying our nation?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true.

It is entertaining to watch the official opposition do everything in its power to undermine the policies we are putting in place, which are actually allowing us to achieve our objectives. With all the measures we have taken and implemented since 2015, we are firmly on track to achieve a one-third reduction in Canada's emissions by 2030. Without carbon pricing, we would be facing an additional 24 million tonnes of emissions. That amounts to taking seven million cars off the road. Carbon pricing works.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard today about how much the cost of the carbon tax would be to our economy. We are looking at a $30-billion hit to our economy, costing over $1,800 per Canadian family every year. However, the only reason we have this information out is because of the pressure from the Conservatives in this place. This document that we were told really did not exist we have now seen was true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was telling the truth.

I wonder if the member could comment on this new revelation and on whether she knew of this information, as a Liberal MP, before it was released today.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is that we will always be there for Canadians and Quebeckers. We will ensure that they have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Thanks to our price on pollution, eight out of 10 families in Canada are getting more money back than they spend.

Once again, I think it is a good system, one that is also recognized across the world.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, if the Liberals are so confident in their climate policy, why will they not be transparent and share their economic analysis with Canadians?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can be confident because we are seeing results. We are here to fight climate change, unlike the official opposition, which has no plan.

We are here to protect the environment and to fight climate change. Climate change is becoming increasingly costly. We really need to take action. That is what we have been doing since we have been in office.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is being stated in the House today that somehow families are worse off, according to the Conservatives. However, the facts are the facts, and eight out of 10 families are actually better off with carbon pricing.

The Conservatives are focused on cuts, while we are focused on investments in Canadians. Could she speak about how that will help Canadians across the country?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition party is there to propose cuts. This is a critical time in the fight against climate change.

I think that the measures we are implementing year after year show Quebeckers and Canadians that this important issue is a priority for us. We are helping municipalities, indigenous communities and developers to undertake innovative projects to make the energy transition and turn to clean and renewable energy.

We have no choice. This is what we have to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to this important issue dealing with climate change and a price on pollution. It is a shame, however, that the Conservatives, once again, use an opposition day to promote their ideology. They work hard every day in the House to simply promote a set of opinions that they purport to be facts.

The motion does give us an opportunity to speak about something that at I think is on the minds a lot of Canadians, and that is climate change and the impacts of that.

While the Conservatives have no plan to deal with climate change, we have been steadfast and focused on ensuring that future generations have a planet and that with the impacts of the rapidly changing climate, our communities are going to be resilient. Investments need to be made, and all orders of government have a role to play in dealing with the impacts of climate change.

It is also crucial that we reiterate this. The government's carbon pricing plan is one of the most effective ways to implement change, but it also puts more money into the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families. I want to speak to some facts to ensure that Canadians hear the numbers that we are dealing with. The average Canadian family in Alberta is $723 ahead with the price on pollution. In Ontario, my home province, a family is $255 ahead with the rebate.

The Conservatives want to take that rebate away. However, what they do not address is that climate change is real and that the impacts and the costs that Canadians face as a result do not go away. This rebate allows for 100% of the revenues collected in the jurisdiction to go back to that same jurisdiction. It allows Canadians to invest in some greener choices, if possible, but it also allows them to offset some of the costs associated with climate change and the impacts that we face.

I spent nearly a decade in municipal politics before running to serve my community of Pickering—Uxbridge in this place. One of the things we dealt with the most at the municipal level was infrastructure and how we could put infrastructure in place that was resilient and adaptable to the changing climate and storms. We used to refer to “hundred-year storms”, which were happening more and more.

Our plan also supports municipalities that need help to ensure their communities truly are resilient and can adapt to what we see more often. We saw catastrophic wildfires in the country. We have seen flooding. In my community of Uxbridge, we had a horrible tornado that damaged businesses, infrastructure, other important community spaces and the homes of individuals.

The cost of inaction is far greater than any proposal to put a price on pollution, but that is something the Conservatives feel everybody should deal with on their own. They do not think the federal government has a role to play in ensuring that communities are resilient. The federal government is going to be there for individuals who are impacted.

The irony in all of this is that the Conservatives know that Canadians care deeply about climate change and the impacts on our planet. In the last election, the Conservatives actually ran on a price on pollution. However, their plan reminded me a lot of going to an arcade, buying tickets and trading them in for a prize. I think there was a bike on the list, gift cards and things like that.

What Canadians can really use to help deal with affordability issues and resiliency in their own homes in dealing with climate change is cash, not a gift card for a bike or Tim Hortons. That is exactly what Conservatives ran on, because they realized that not dealing with climate change was not politically viable.

If we fast-forward to the current leader, they want Canadians to forget that climate change is real, that the impacts are real, that the financial costs are real and that our government's plan is not only reducing emissions but also ensuring there is more money in the pockets of Canadians, like I said, in eight out of 10 families. That is precisely what Conservatives do not want to talk about. They want Canadians to think that this is some sort of ideology and tax policy, when it is ensuring Canada's future. It is ensuring affordability for Canadians, and it is ensuring that we are reducing emissions in a way that allows Canadians to move forward in that work together. It is about fairness. It is about ensuring that our communities are resilient. It is about supporting each other as we experience more severe weather events right across this country. It is about making sure there is more money in the pockets of Canadians right across this country.

Conservatives do not have a plan to deal with the environment, so they are trying to distract Canadians from the reality. I think they are going to be in for yet another surprise when they realize that Canadians care deeply about this issue. They care deeply about the environment and want Canada to be a leader. If we want to talk about the economy, countries around the world, in trade and doing business with other countries, are going to expect each country to have a very real plan to deal with climate and reduce carbon emissions. Canada will lag behind if we do not address the very real issues of the world and if we do not do it in an economically responsible way.

It is a shame that this motion was brought forward today. It would be incredibly important for this House and Parliament to constantly debate the very real issues of climate change. Unfortunately, Conservatives want to pretend it does not exist. In the last speech, we heard about the fact that this plan will have a one-third reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, the equivalent of seven million more cars off the roads. These are very real results.

We are making our communities resilient, focusing on affordability issues for all Canadians and making sure that it is not free to pollute anymore. Canadians will be watching. They will see that if anyone who runs for office and wants to hold the highest position in this country is not serious about climate change, they are not serious about Canada's future and they are certainly not serious about Canada's economy.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not really address the motion. The motion is about the production of documents. We have seen the government withhold information from Canadians.

The member ran in 2015 on a promise to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history, which would be open by default and would release data to Canadians that is the property of Canadians. Under the government, why did it take the presence of this motion on notice for the Liberals to reluctantly, after weeks of obfuscation, finally release the data? It was some of the data, as they have not conformed with the substance of the motion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an officer of Parliament, was actually being told to suppress information and had to resort to the broken ATIP system to get data.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the irony in that question is unbelievable, given the cuts that were made to our independent public servants under the Conservative government whenever they had opinions that did not suit the Conservative government. In fact, we have said time and time again that eight out of 10 Canadian families would be better off under our pricing of pollution. Over 300 economists have also confirmed that, but Conservatives do not want to be confused by the facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit disconcerting when we have debates on carbon pricing and the fight against climate change. On the one hand, the government has clearly not done enough for the past nine years, but on the other hand, the official opposition is proposing to do even less. It is quite disconcerting. In my riding, groups are coming to me or writing to me because they are very concerned that Canada is not doing enough.

The Liberals are always bragging about their efforts, their results and so on. According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2022, Canada gave $38 billion U.S., or $50 billion Canadian, to oil companies. The five major oil companies in Canada made profits of $200 billion in 2022. I am not even counting the $35 billion that Trans Mountain cost.

I would like my colleague to tell me, at a time when we need housing, when seniors are struggling, and when people are having trouble finding a family doctor, how can they send $50 billion to the oil companies?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, hear from constituents who are deeply concerned about climate change. In fact, I agree with my hon. colleague that there is more we should be doing and we must be doing, but it becomes very difficult when we have an official opposition that does not even believe climate change is real and that continuously puts forward motions like this, when instead we could be pushing each other to do more and to take more action to make Canada a true leader in fighting against climate change. Instead, Conservatives want to put their hands over their eyes and pretend it is not an issue. I look forward to working with Bloc members, who take this as seriously as I do and as our government does.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to check that we actually have quorum to continue this debate.

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

We will do a quick count.

And the count having been taken:

We do have quorum.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite what the Liberals say, they actually do not have a plan for dealing with climate change. Just ask the people from Abbotsford, Princeton and Merritt in my home province of British Columbia, who got zero dollars from the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. The Liberals' plan is to tax people, but not to actually help communities with climate-resilient infrastructure.

Where is the money for the province of British Columbia?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to be investing in communities. That was a big portion of my speech. I take the member opposite in his sincerity for wanting to ensure that there is resiliency in communities like his that have been impacted by climate change. The problem with that statement is that it is his party that would actually reduce the ability to fund resiliency and infrastructure projects. Conservatives want to cut the budgets that would allow this to happen. They want to make pollution free again. While I agree with his sincerity around resiliency and investments, he comes from the party that actually wants to cut all of these funds and leave cities and communities on their own to deal with climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. I am going to split my time today with the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, a great guy, a fantastic guy. I look forward to hearing his words of wisdom here this afternoon.

Primarily, even though the costly coalition wants to talk about climate change, the motion is about the duplicity of the NDP-Liberal government that Canadians have sadly had to put up with for a long time. I am not sure why, but the Liberals continue to want to somehow induce scandal upon themselves and keep facts hidden from Canadians. Of course, today, the facts, as presented from the secret report, which was in some way, shape or form made available this morning, are that the Liberals' carbon tax is going to cost Canadians $30.5 billion, yes, “billion” with a “b”, which turns out to be about $2,000 per Canadian family. Certainly, this is above and beyond the direct costs of the carbon tax at the pumps, on people's heating bills and on food.

This is really no surprise. There are many, many things that the government has wanted to keep hidden and, thanks to the great work of my colleagues here on this side of the House, we have been able to uncover many of those things. Certainly, the carbon tax, though the government would have people believe it should be named something else, is the tax on everything. We have heard it multiple times in this House, and I think it bears repeating: When they tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who ships the food, the person who buys the food in the end has to pay for that cost. That is just simple economics, but good luck trying to explain that to the costly coalition. It really fascinates me, because it appears that maybe the Liberals' constituents experience it differently than those of us on this side of the House.

As I have said in this House many times, I was a family doctor for 26 years, and people reach out to my office as a member of Parliament every single day wondering how they are going to make ends meet. I would suggest that often the relationship with a family physician is an incredibly intimate one, where people often tell their deepest secrets, and that is something that I never heard in my office previously. Certainly it is not because I lived in an incredibly affluent neighbourhood and that just was not happening there. We live in a rural place. It is very average in terms of income, but I never heard that before, and that is incredibly troubling. Therefore, when we begin to hear this from everyday Canadians, we really wonder how difficult times are out there, and we actually know that they are incredibly difficult.

We know, though, that there are some Canadians who want to speak up on behalf of others, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Certainly we know that on television the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “overall, a vast majority of people will be worse off under a carbon pricing regime than without, and we don't expect that to change.”