44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/27/22 10:12:13 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the government's decision to break its electoral promise by tripling the carbon tax on gas, home heating, groceries and all other essential items Canadians need to survive.
We have to recognize that this is a tax increase that will apply everywhere in Canada and will increase the prices in every province, even in the provinces where there is no refund from the federal government.
This tax hike comes at a time when inflation is at a 40-year high and nine out of 10 young people who do not already own a home do not think they ever will. It comes at a time when students are living in shelters because they cannot afford rent. It comes at a time when four out of five Canadians have to cut back on food because they cannot afford groceries. It comes at a time when Canadians cannot even fill up their car or truck to go to work. This is exactly the wrong time to raise taxes on paycheques, gas and other things.
Let us start by talking about fried green tomatoes. The little miracles of Manotick, SunTech tomatoes are from a beautiful little tomato farm about 40 minutes south of here, in the heart of the great Carleton riding, where some entrepreneurial farmers opened a greenhouse to sell beautiful local produce to residents in the area. They are delicious and they are legendary right across the region.
Unfortunately, the farmers learned that the carbon tax from the government would apply to the CO2 they release into the greenhouse. Now, of course, CO2 is required to expand growth and increase the produce that comes out of the greenhouse. This CO2 does not even go into the atmosphere; it goes into the plant life, something the Liberals may have missed in grade 4 science class. The reality is that it makes the tomatoes more expensive.
What is the consequence of the tax on these tomatoes? Well, it is, at times, more expensive to buy a Manotick tomato in Manotick than a Mexican tomato in Manotick. Why? It is because the taxes are lower in Mexico, even though the pollution is higher. What does this price signal do? It tells the customer to buy a tomato from the other side of North America, which has to be trained and trucked all the way up to Canada, burning fossil fuels the whole way there and increasing emissions along the way.
What happened to the local 100-mile diet that environmentalists used to promote? Well, this tax makes that diet more difficult and less affordable, the big logical fallacy of the Liberal carbon tax. It drives up the cost of domestic production and drives that production to foreign, more polluting jurisdictions that then require higher transportation costs and more emissions to bring products back to Canadian consumers here at home.
Our approach should be exactly the opposite. We should bring production home and have our food, our energy and our resources right here in Canada.
Let us look at the three falsehoods of the Liberal carbon tax.
The Liberals said it would help us meet our targets for emissions reduction. They have now been in power for seven years and have not hit a single solitary emissions reduction target. In fact, even in the year 2020, when large parts of our economy and our population were locked down and unable to even drive, they came nowhere close to reaching their targets. Let me tell the House how far they missed them. They missed them by 57 megatonnes. That is equivalent to all of the emissions of the four Atlantic provinces or equivalent to our entire electricity sector.
In other words, if we had turned off all of the electricity in Canada in that year, in addition to having been locked down during COVID, then we would have still fallen just short of meeting the targets the Liberals set for themselves. In order words, the carbon tax did not hit those targets. It did not come anywhere close and, in fact, we expect the emissions will again start rising now that the lockdowns are fortunately behind us. That is the first falsehood.
If the Liberals were really serious about reducing emissions, they had many options. They could have signalled their support for small modular nuclear reactors so that we could use our prodigious know-how to supply Canadians with emissions-free nuclear energy. We have the biggest supply of uranium as feedstock right in Saskatchewan and the best nuclear engineers right here in Ontario. We have a need for this electricity in provinces nationwide. We have provinces that have signed on to memoranda of understanding to replace high-emitting sources of electricity with small modular nuclear reactors, but of course our Minister of the Environment has said that he does not even agree with nuclear. I do not know where he expects electricity to come from, but certainly nobody is going to invest in creating these modular reactors if the Minister of the Environment himself is against them.
The Liberals could have backed up carbon capture and storage, of which the Canadian energy industry is leading in the world. It is the industry putting carbon back in the ground where it came from, the carbon trunk, which allows that carbon to go back to geological formations where it can be safely stored. The government was slow to support it and insufficient in that support.
The Liberals could have incentivized industry to further reduce emissions. They could have also used Canada's clean energy production to displace dirty foreign production. We have 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas right here in Canada. With the hydroelectricity in Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia, we can liquefy that natural gas without any emissions at all. In fact, we have the shortest shipping distances from North America to both Asia and Europe, allowing us to reduce the cost and the emissions necessary to get that energy to those markets. That clean Canadian natural gas could displace dirty coal-fired electricity around the world.
Liberals might want to dispute this today, but that was their contention not long ago. The Prime Minister showed up for a photo op to take credit for the previous Conservative government's approval of the LNG Canada project in northern British Columbia. He said at the time, “We know LNG produces...half the amount of carbon emissions as coal.” He then said that this project would have the effect of reducing global emissions by displacing dirtier sources of electricity in Asia. This is the quote: “So by sending Canadian LNG to markets that are today powered by coal, we will help those jurisdictions transition away from this energy source.”
According to Rob Seeley, president of E3Merge Consulting, “for every unit of GHGs that British Columbia produces to get that LNG to market, the overseas production of GHGs goes down by a factor of 10.” In other words, by replacing foreign coal-fired with our Canadian energy, we can reduce emissions.
Further, this same expert said:
Shipping LNG at design capacity from Kitimat to displace coal-generated electricity in China would reduce global GHG emissions by 60 to 90 million tonnes annually, equivalent to the annual production of GHGs in all of B.C....
Would that not be something? What an achievement that would be.
By the way, 60 million to 90 million tonnes of greenhouse gases is exactly what the Liberals promised the carbon tax would eliminate. It did not happen, but this project would have allowed it to. However, projects like this are not able to go ahead because of government gatekeepers standing in the way.
When this Prime Minister took office, there were 15 LNG proposals on the table. Not a single one has been completed, seven years later. Imagine the emissions we could have reduced and the paycheques we could have grown if we had gotten out of the way and allowed these projects to proceed.
We could export more of our civilian-grade uranium, so that foreign jurisdictions could shut down dirty coal and replace it with clean Canadian energy. We could support Quebec and Manitoba as they attempt to export and get better revenues for their hydroelectricity. There are countless ways we can combat the emissions of our country and the world without taxing and punishing our citizens, and if the Liberals had done that, maybe they would not have missed every single target they have set.
The second promise the Liberals made is that the carbon tax would make everyone better off. Everyone would pay this tax, but there would be a cheque in the mail that would compensate them for it. It sounds like one of those scam emails that I get that say, if I just give them my bank card information, they will make a big deposit and I will be rich, and it is always from an uncle on the other side of the world somewhere. It turns out that the cheque bounced.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and I am looking at the numbers right here on the table he set out, the net cost to Albertans of this carbon tax when it is fully implemented will be $2,282 per household. In Saskatchewan it will be $1,464 per household, and in Manitoba, it will be $1,145 per household. In Ontario it will be $1,461. That is in net costs, so it is with the rebates the government has promised.
That is, by the way, the least of the problem. For the six provinces that do not get any rebate, they will be far worse off. We must remember that the carbon tax may be provincially administered in British Columbia, Quebec and some other regions of the country. However, it is federally imposed, so even if provinces have their own regimes, they will have to triple their carbon tax in order to meet the mandate the federal government has put in place, and they will get no rebate at all. Those provinces will be vastly worse off than the cases I just mentioned.
This, at a time when Canadians cannot pay for their groceries, cannot gas their vehicles and are fearing the cost that winter will hit them with in just a few short months. This is exactly the last time we need to raise a tax. Think about it. The Liberals are proposing to bring in a 40¢-a-litre tax on gasoline. How many of the single mothers, of the working farmers, of the welders or of the waitresses can afford to pay another 40¢ a litre in gas taxes. Every party in this House, except the Conservatives, want to hit those working people with those higher taxes. We will stand in the way. We will fight back. We will defend consumers against this tax.
The final falsehood is that the Liberals said this carbon tax would never go above $50 a tonne. That was it. They said at $50 a tonne they would be done. That was before the election. After the election they said the tax would have to be tripled. They said it was so ineffective that they needed to make it three times the size in order to do the job, and that is just what we know about. If they are going to triple the tax after just one broken election promise, we can imagine if they were, God forbid, given another mandate. What surprise would we hear the next day after the election? How high would the tax have to go, a dollar a litre in new taxes or tripling home heating bills?
What other costs would the Liberals surprise Canadians with if they got the chance? They have broken their promise on this. They have broken their promise on income taxes, which they said would go down. They have broken their promise on countless other taxes, and we can expect that they will only break more promises, because they need to raise taxes in order to feed their insatiable appetite for spending.
Canadians will not let them. Conservatives will run on a low-tax agenda in the next election, and we will win and deliver that low-tax agenda.
We forget sometimes that it is our small businesses that will be asked to bear a disproportionate burden. They get no rebate at all. Unlike large industrial corporations that get a complete exemption from the carbon tax, small businesses have to pay it on the cost of heating their restaurants, firing up their stoves in order to feed their patrons, transporting their goods and running their factories.
All of them have to pay those taxes, because they are not big enough to get the exemption that the large industrial corporations have received. Therefore, we can expect more small businesses to make up the difference by having to raise prices on consumers or lower wages on their workers, all making Canadians worse off at a time when they can least afford it.
Small and medium-sized businesses do not get an exemption. The tax will cost them more, three times more if the Liberals stay in power thanks to their coalition partners, the New Democrats. That is why we are going to keep standing up for our small and medium-sized businesses, which are creating jobs and providing goods and services to consumers. The Conservatives will always stand up for small and medium-sized businesses by cancelling this tax increase.
Of course, this tax comes on top of other taxes. The Liberals propose to raise taxes on paycheques. Starting January 1, they will raise EI and CPP payroll taxes, even though they have enough funds at the current rates to fund both of those programs, including with the regular increased benefits that can be expected. They want to jeopardize the paycheques of Canadians to raise taxes and run big surpluses in the EI account, which they then will use to fund overall government spending rather than to provide workers with protection against unemployment. Conservatives believe that EI should not be a cash cow for government. It should be a protection for our workers, and we will not support any increase in the EI payroll tax.
Our theory, our principle, is that a dollar left in the hands of the person who earned it is always better than in the hands of the politician who taxed it. We want this to be once again a country where hard work pays off, where the person who puts in that extra hour, takes that extra shift or earns that extra bonus keeps that money to give their kids a summer a camp or to give their family an opportunity for a small camping trip or, God forbid, to upsize their house or move from an apartment into a place of their own. This should be a country of opportunity, of boundless possibility, for anyone who is prepared to put in the work.
It is appalling to me that a single mom of three earning $55,000 a year who goes out and earns another dollar loses 80¢ in government clawbacks and taxes. That is according to a study by this very finance department of the current government. We are punishing the people who do the work of this nation.
Our workers deserve rewards for their work. Our small business owners who take risks and mortgage their homes to survive and to supply our communities with services and our people with jobs deserve to keep the fruits of their labour. That is why Conservatives will always stand on the side of the people who work hard, who pay their taxes and who play by the rules. We will put Canadians back in control of their money, their lives, right here in Canada, the freest nation on earth.
2722 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 10:50:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do feel I need to correct the record, because there are many errors in the speech of the parliamentary secretary
The first is the claim that the Conservatives do not have any targets for climate change and emissions reduction. In fact, the Liberals' targets are Stephen Harper's 2030 targets, so that is not the case.
The member said that we did not have a plan. Our leader outlined technologies such as nuclear, carbon sequestration and carbon capture, and leveraging LNG to other places in the world that would help reduce the footprint by a factor of 10.
Why does the Liberal government keep telling Canadians things that are simply not the case, such as they were only going to pay $50 a tonne for carbon tax or they were going to get more money back than they invested? Why does the Liberal government continue to do that?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 10:51:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it laughable for the member opposite to suggest that the Conservative Party has a concrete plan to fight the climate crisis. She referenced Stephen Harper's government. Under Stephen Harper, our emissions ran wild.
We have put in place a robust and very ambitious target to get to net zero, and we are committed to getting there.
We hope that the Conservatives will not stand in the way.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 10:53:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the experts I named in my speech all said that our plan to put a price on pollution was the best way of dealing with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
With respect to our goal of achieving net zero, it is certainly a very ambitious goal, and we are proud of it.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 10:55:31 a.m.
- Watch
I will start by stating the obvious. Climate change is real, it is happening now and parts of Canada are warming faster than the global average. The latest science warns that to avoid severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C. Canadians want and expect real action on climate change.
The government has a plan, the emissions reduction plan released in March. Canada can meet its climate targets. The economy will continue to grow. This plan is realistic and affordable.
Carbon pricing is central to this plan, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it is based on the principle that it should not be free to pollute. Whoever creates pollution should be responsible for the cost. This is a fair and equitable approach.
Carbon pricing also lets individuals and businesses decide for themselves how best to reduce pollution. It does not dictate or ban anything; it makes certain activities a bit more expensive and rewards those who make cleaner choices.
We have also made affordability central to our approach. It is true that pricing carbon pollution is modestly increasing fuel costs, as my hon. friend from the Green Party said just a few moments ago, by about 2¢ per litre of gasoline this year.
We know every little bit counts, but carbon pricing has never been about raising revenues. Under our federal system, most households come out ahead, and low-income households particularly do much better. The average household receives more in climate action incentive payments than it faces in direct costs due to carbon pricing. This has been confirmed repeatedly in independent studies.
Outside of cities there are fewer options. People have to drive more. That is why the climate action incentive payment includes a 10% top-up for rural residents. We are not asking people to change their lives overnight. Taking transit or using an electric vehicle will not work for everyone right now. That is why we have the climate action incentive to ensure the policy is affordable for everyone.
Returning proceeds from carbon pollution pricing helps with affordability, but it also maintains the incentive to choose greener options. This is because the climate action incentive payment is not directly tied to a household's fossil fuel consumption. It is basic economics. If something costs more, people buy less of it. That is what carbon pricing does for pollution. Returning the funds does not change the equation.
Here is the real opportunity. Canadians who do make low-carbon changes benefit even more. Fuel efficient vehicles use less gas and therefore incur fewer vehicle costs. We are now increasing the rollout of electric vehicles. The government provides purchase incentives to bring the cost down. We are investing in more charging stations. The technologies keep improving, with longer range, better batteries and lower costs. Canadians are starting to do the math of rising carbon prices, volatile oil prices and tailpipe pollution versus less maintenance, no oil changes and charging at home. The equation is pretty simple.
We can look at our homes. Most of them are heated with natural gas. Better insulation, plugging leaks or a newer furnace, all use less energy, cut pollution and, importantly, save money. The government is supporting home energy retrofits through the greener homes grant, and this is being positively received by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Canadians want to take action, they want to do their part and they want an approach that is fair and equitable. Carbon pricing is a nudge in that direction, and it is money back in their pockets to help use less and save more.
Let us not be nearsighted. Climate change is a global challenge, and the costs of inaction are high. Canadians want climate change action. The government owes it to them to be responsible and use policies that are the most efficient and cost effective.
Canada is not alone in fighting climate change and pricing carbon pollution. Around the world, markets are changing. Industries are moving away from products and services that create carbon pollution and are turning to cleaner and more sustainable options.
The cost of inaction on climate change is enormous. We are seeing that in Atlantic Canada right now. As emphasized in the most recent IPCC report, the costs of inaction are very high, including more severe floods, forest fires, heat waves and droughts, which all cause environmental and economic damage.
The Canadian Climate Institute's 2020 report “Tip of the Iceberg” confirms that weather-related disasters are costing Canada more each year, rising from tens of millions of dollars to billions of dollars annually in Canada.
Just wrapping up, our climate plan is working. Canadians have been clear about what they want, which is clean air, good jobs, a healthy environment and a strong economy. Our approach ensures that Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition under way. Evidence confirms that putting a price on carbon pollution works. It spurs clean growth, supports jobs and cuts the pollution causing climate change. Pricing carbon pollution and returning proceeds to Canadian families and businesses is an effective and affordable way to combat climate change while supporting the sustainability of Canadian communities.
897 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:06:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me the opportunity to say that emissions must come down. I think we agree that the energy sector needs to step up and invest, given that it is doing well right now.
To the question of subsidies, as the hon. member knows, we are putting a cap on oil and gas emissions. We are introducing a clean fuel standard, and very importantly, we are going to be phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. That will be done two years earlier than originally planned, in 2023.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:21:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a bit difficult to speak after the House leader of the Bloc Québécois. He is such a colourful speaker that I cannot hope to outdo him, even when I dress in yellow.
He is an economist, and he explained clearly that a better knowledge of the technical details is necessary before proposing measures that could have major repercussions on the public.
Of course, we all agree that inflation is very real and that it affects everyone, all the people in all the ridings we represent, and we want to propose solutions. However, before rushing to introduce concrete measures, we need to know whether or not it is the right thing to do.
Today feels like Groundhog Day. Back in June, the Conservative Party moved a similar motion with almost identical wording. That motion talked about the rising cost of living and proposed, once again, to abolish the carbon tax in order to put money back into the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians. However, I find it a bit odd to hear the Conservative members from Quebec say that this measure will put money back into Quebeckers' pockets when the carbon tax does not even apply in Quebec.
As my colleague clearly explained earlier, the carbon market is working very well in Quebec. Unfortunately, the goal of this Conservative measure may not actually be what they say it is. They are proposing a solution to inflation, which is a very real problem. However, instead of helping families, this measure would help the oil companies, which are not currently doing their part. Families are doing their part and getting money in return. It is a system that works quite well, and that is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said.
The Conservatives have a gift for twisting people's words. Just yesterday, during the debate on hurricane Fiona, I made a connection between extreme weather events and climate change. In response, the Conservative Party leader said the Bloc Québécois was in favour of importing foreign oil into Canada. That is not it at all. We want to cut fossil fuels out entirely and invest in renewable energy.
They did the same thing with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. The Conservatives hand-picked one section and put their own spin on it. What the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said was that the general consensus among economists is that explicit carbon pricing is the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think we can trust the Parliamentary Budget Officer on that. Of course, he did not study Quebec's carbon market, which the Bloc Québécois considers to be the best system. It works very well in Quebec, anyway.
I will not repeat all the causes of inflation, since my House leader did an excellent job of that earlier. However, I would like to emphasize the repercussions that inflation is having on people in my region, eastern Quebec.
The average salary in the Gaspé region is $52,000 and in the Lower St. Lawrence, it is $40,000. That is not a lot of money for a whole year. With the rising cost of living, the cost of groceries, the cost of gas and the price of housing, people are already struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis, and have been for many years. They have to count their pennies and stick to their budgets. Now they are really stretched to the limit.
I visited a few farms this summer. With skyrocketing input costs and shortages of parts needed for farm equipment, our farmers' job is getting harder and harder. We are talking about the people who help put food on our tables three times a day. Inflation is having an impact on these people and on the people they feed.
As I have said before in the House, a protest was organized recently by low-income people in the RCM of La Mitis, in my riding. Their slogan was: “I paid my rent. Now I have a place to starve to death”. These people were telling us that they have to choose between paying the rent and buying groceries. They have to choose between food and shelter, both of which are basic needs. We are at a point where people are having to choose between these two basic needs. It is frightening to see what an impact inflation is having on the people in my riding.
Over in the Avignon RCM, in Chaleur Bay, the Gaspé wardens' table offered financial incentives for building housing. Obviously the spike in construction costs has turned off the developers. There are not a lot of people who want to invest, and that is leading to a housing shortage in the region.
The housing investments that the federal government is making are good, but sadly insufficient. Often these big amounts go to large cities, and the regions are overlooked. We are seeing a positive demographic shift in the Gaspé and Lower St. Lawrence for the first time in 20 years, and we would love to welcome more people, but we have nowhere for them to live.
The same goes for the labour shortage. We are eager to bring in workers from other parts of Quebec or Canada and from around the world, but there is nowhere to put them. That is having a direct impact on the people in my region.
Gilles Dufour, executive director of Moisson Mitis, told us that requests for assistance have increased by between 30% and 40%. That is not insignificant. Every holiday season, I like to go and help distribute Christmas baskets to those most in need. We are seeing just how much those numbers are going up. Also, fewer people are available to help out or to donate goods or money because they are dealing with the rising cost of living. It is a vicious cycle and we are having trouble helping each other out.
I believe that we all agree with the first part of the Conservatives' motion. Inflation is very real and we must find solutions. However, I do not believe that scrapping the carbon tax is the magic solution.
As I mentioned, this is the second time they have tried to pass this in the House, but a majority of members rejected it because we know there are other solutions on the table. Of course we have to have these debates and use all means necessary to implement measures quickly. The Bloc Québécois has proposed several measures and I will come back to that. My colleague spoke about solutions that could be implemented.
I think the Conservatives are misrepresenting what the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, said about the carbon tax. This tax would not cost households 60% more, as the Conservative Party is claiming. Once you dig deeper into the facts and into the technical details, it becomes clear that this claim is incomplete and lacking specifics. As I said earlier, the tax does not apply in Quebec. It applies in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. The government committed to giving the proceeds of the gas tax directly back to individuals and families through climate action incentive payments.
The PBO did his analysis in March 2022. In his report, he said that the federal carbon tax is set to rise by $15 per year from $50 per tonne in 2022 to $170 per tonne in 2030. The Conservatives claim it is 60%, but the PBO based his analysis on the 2030 price per tonne, which is $170, so that is not the current price, but the Conservatives are muddying the waters. That will not happen until 2030-31, which is when some families might feel the pain.
We know oil companies are not contributing their fair share. They should be paying more. Eliminating the carbon tax will not help us fight climate change and meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Yes, there is room for improvement. Nothing is ever perfect, but for the time being, that is not the solution that will put money back in people's pockets, certainly not for the low-income families that get that tax refunded.
What we need to do is focus on the subsidies being given to oil companies, the money being taken from the wallets of Canadians and Quebeckers and given to oil and gas companies.
I am running out of time, but we will have plenty of time to talk about this later.
1436 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:33:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives think there is a better way to reduce climate change than tripling the price on carbon. As the member said, that better way is technology. Here is a little example. In Vancouver, where I live, we had the AirCare program for about 20 years for people to test their vehicle emissions. Because of technological advances, we no longer need to do that. Clearly, technology can be the solution to pollution.
The cost of living has gone up by 11% in the past year, so why does the Bloc Québécois want Quebeckers to suffer yet another blow? This is a tax on people, people who are suffering. The member said people are afraid of starving to death.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:51:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member brought up carbon capture and storage. I would be more than happy for the member to come to my riding, and I would give her a tour of what CCS does. It provides a tremendous amount of work, benefits and jobs throughout our very rural environment.
The member talked about capturing carbon out of the air, and that technology is just a mindset. It has not even been developed to see if it is effective. I am interested to know why the member would comment on something like that, without actually understanding what it is, and not recognize that, by capturing that carbon, it actually reduces the emissions, which in turn allows us to reduce the emissions on a carbon tax.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:52:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, report after report has shown that, currently, carbon capture, utilization and storage has resulted in more emissions than it has saved.
Mr. Robert Kitchen: Show me the reports.
Ms. Laurel Collins: I can send the member the report. I would be happy to and—
Mr. Robert Kitchen: Who were they written by?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:11:49 p.m.
- Watch
They can use words like “hypocrisy” to describe what happened and our leader's position, but what is really hypocritical is what the Bloc Québécois is trying to sell us. They know full well that Quebeckers, fathers and workers will end up paying more because of the Liberal government's decision to triple the carbon tax. Ultimately, the government's intention is to force the provinces that are not imposing the carbon tax to increase their system.
The worst part is that the government's carbon tax has successfully demonstrated that its targets do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The Liberal government failed to meet any greenhouse gas reduction targets with its promise that the carbon tax would be capped at $50 per tonne. After the election, we learned that the government intends to triple the carbon tax because it was a failure and they were unable to meet their greenhouse gas targets. Now people will have to pay three times as much. They will not be able to use their vehicles because it will cost them more, so they will emit fewer greenhouse gases. Where is the logic in the current Liberal government's attitude, other than making workers and families pay for its policy that fails to reduce greenhouse gases?
That is the reality. At this time, with the carbon tax and the government's desire to make Canadians pay more and more in taxes, with its excessive spending policies and its use of public funds to create new programs, and considering Canada's rising debt levels and record deficits, it is not surprising that everything is more expensive.
Let us imagine a mother who goes to do her grocery shopping. The first thing she sees at the grocery store is how much more fresh fruit and vegetables cost. In the meat section, a small package of chicken that used to cost $8 now costs $16. We are told that meat prices have increased by 6.5%, but that is an average of different kinds of meat. The cost of basic meat, the kind we buy to feed our families, has gone up a lot more than 6.5%, according to statistics.
Dairy prices have gone up by 7%. We need to put bread and butter on the table, but the price of bread has risen by 15.4%. In the fresh produce section, prices are up by 13.2%. Many fruits are not grown in Canada. It is expensive to ship them. We cannot produce all fruits, because many do not grow in Canada.
We are feeling the effects of this inflationary crisis. Transportation, which will be hardest hit by the tripling of the carbon tax, is the main reason prices are going up, and things are going to get even worse. The price of sugar is up 11%; fish is up 8.7%. That is what families have to contend with.
People can argue about the effects of the carbon tax, claim it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and say we all need to do our part, but experience has shown that it does not work. For it to work, people have to pay three times more tax. The government decided it was up to individuals, and only individuals, to make all the sacrifices and go without so that it can move toward meeting its own targets.
I recently witnessed what goes on at grocery stores. This is what happens in times of crisis. Stores put out flyers on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. It used to be that people would wait until the weekend to do their shopping because sale items would still be available then. That is no longer the case. Visit a grocery store any Thursday or Friday. The place is packed, and there are lineups everywhere.
People want to be sure they get the products that are on sale that week at the grocery stores so that they can put a bit more food in their cart. That is what we are seeing at the grocery stores today.
I would love for the Prime Minister to go to the grocery store every Tuesday and Thursday for two or three weeks to see what is going on. Then he could go to the store on Saturday and Sunday, and he would see that there is absolutely nothing left on the shelves, no more of the discounted products, because everything sold out quickly since people have no choice.
According to the statistics, 24% of Canadians say they have cut back how much food they buy. That means a quarter of Canadians are buying less food because everything costs more. We are in Canada. Things like that should not be happening here.
I also wanted to tell Mike's story, but I am running out of time.
We cannot allow the Liberals to make people across Canada pay the price for their decision to triple the carbon tax. If this tax hike goes through, things that people cannot afford today will become even more unaffordable tomorrow.
848 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:18:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to share our deepest sympathies on the passing of the member's mother. I would also like to take the opportunity to give a tribute to my mother, who raised five boys just about all by herself. We are very close to my mother. She is 87 years young.
I do not know if the hon. member has followed the B.C. situation, but perhaps he could confer with his colleague sitting next to him. Interestingly enough, the Province of British Columbia was the first to put a price on pollution. It was a Conservative-leaning government. It offset the carbon price with lowering income taxes. It has the lowest income tax, by the way, in the country.
Emissions went down 14%. The economy grew by 26%. Is that not showing the way?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to tackle a couple of things the member for Cumberland—Colchester has said.
The first is around the idea that Nova Scotia put forward a plan. I am a Nova Scotia member of Parliament. I certainly respect the fact that we have a provincial government that does a lot of good things collectively between federal and provincial, but Mr. Houston did not put forward a plan. Just simply saying that we want to get to goals without having a plan on paper is not actually pricing pollution. Therefore, I take notice that it was not really a plan; it was an aspirational document. The provincial government has followed up with something in place and we will see whether that meets the federal test with respect to being able to price pollution.
What I cannot understand is the fact that carbon pricing at its core is a Conservative principle of allowing the market to decide and drive innovation. Why does the member for Cumberland—Colchester want big bossy government programs to dictate how we reduce emissions as opposed to letting the market decide?
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:37:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to understand clearly is that adding more fuel to the inflationary fire is really not going to make this situation any better for average Canadians. It is also important that we do understand the plight of Canadians and that we understand that our transition away from fossil fuels, and there will be one, will be long and difficult.
When we look at the number of cars that are on the road today, there is no viable way to take an internal combustion engine and turn it into an electric vehicle.
My question would be how we would do that quickly and effectively, and using a carbon tax that has not been proven to reduce emissions at all really seems like a silly way to continue and it is damaging the financial position of Canadians.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:39:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Davenport this afternoon.
I am pleased to rise to speak to the Conservative opposition motion before us today. I want to say on the record that I love opposition days, which give us the opportunity to debate and talk at length about policy with our colleagues.
The motion before us today reads, and I quote:
...given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax.
I take exception to the claim that carbon pricing is a tax. Merriam-Webster defines a tax as a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions.
In my view, this is a program designed to set a price on carbon with all proceeds being reinvested, not used for government programs. It is therefore not a tax in the traditional sense of the word.
It is important, because on this side of the House we talk about pricing pollution and pricing carbon. That is essentially what we are doing. The Conservative Party obviously talks about it as a tax, but a tax, in a general sense, is for the general collection of government revenues. It is not often recognized by my opposition friends that the way in which the federal backstop program actually works is it returns the revenue that is collected.
Yes, that is a collection on a macro level and there can be a differentiation between households and businesses, but that is the whole idea. We are trying to price a negative externality that is associated with GHG emissions, because this is about climate. I know that affordability is a top-of-mind issue. No one on this side of the House would disagree, but at the same time, what I have not heard in the conversations this morning, particularly from His Majesty's loyal opposition, is much conversation about a real plan to reduce emissions. We have to take those two conversations hand in hand.
I did ask in my question for the member for Cumberland—Colchester why the Conservative Party was against a core Conservative principle, and that is that this government takes the view that we want to put a price on carbon, such that there is a market incentive for changed behaviour for businesses and individuals to be able to adjust accordingly. This is what I find ironic about the Conservative position. Notwithstanding that, I have not heard much at all about climate in the couple of weeks since the member for Carleton has become the official opposition leader. Nor have I heard much of an alternative.
It seems like we are going to rely on technology. Therefore, how is the government going to incentivize the private sector to take on that technology? Is it going to be through government subsidies? Is it going to be through a regulatory model? There is not much conversation on what that holds.
At the core of what we are talking about in carbon pricing is setting that price to change behaviour and draw investment from the private sector to make some of those technological innovations, which it seems the Conservative Party perhaps thinks will be done out of the goodness of one's heart without an actual economic model to do so.
It is important to recognize that economists and organizations around the world recognize that carbon pricing is the cheapest way to reduce emissions. I recognize that the member for Carleton certainly has a level of distrust against international organizations. We have seen that with the World Economic Forum in the way that he has criticized that organization. I do not know if that extends to the OECD, but the OECD does recognize carbon pricing in this domain. It is yet to be seen what the Conservative Party's take is on that view.
Instead of allowing the market to decide, incentivizing individual households, businesses and the economy, the Conservatives want to have, again as I mentioned in my question, big bossy government programs. They want government, at a large macro level, to intervene as opposed to driving private sector innovation and ingenuity. I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why the Conservative Party does not understand or believe this is a principle that can be used to reduce emissions.
Again, let us remember why this is being done. It is being done in the context that we have a climate emergency. We have to be able to reduce emissions.
We were in the House last night talking about hurricane Fiona and I was very careful not to make those two connections, because we wanted to ensure the debate was really about providing support to Atlantic Canadians. Although the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake was on record as saying that climate and hurricanes had no connection, which I was appalled to hear as I watched the debate from my hotel room. There is a connection. The frequency of these storms is tied to the work we have to do on climate. The Conservative Party, in one breath, seemed to talk about that yesterday, and then it has comes up with no real tangible solutions in its motion today.
I would also like to challenge the part of the motion on home heating. In my region, Atlantic Canada, there is no carbon tax levied on home heating because the provinces have introduced their own carbon pricing systems. Therefore, this motion would have little effect in Atlantic Canada at this time.
This government recognizes that it is imperative to focus on both affordability and emission reductions at the same time. That is precisely why we have put in place a $250-million program to help low-income residents move away from using oil to heat their homes. A total of $120 million from this program will be earmarked for the Atlantic provinces.
I want to make sure I am on the record saying that I am proud of the way our Atlantic caucus advocated for that specific program. There are a lot of Atlantic Canadians who still use home heating oil to warm their homes, and this money is going to go directly to support their transition in order to make sure we can avoid the volatility of their energy bills, which we have seen in the global market on home heating oil.
I also want to say it is very clear that the Conservatives are taking a complete opposition to carbon pricing. It is very clear for most in this House that there is very little in the way of tangible offerings on what else they would do. I take notice that it is not just carbon pricing that can reduce emissions. I agree that it needs to be a whole, full approach with other elements as well, but we do not hear anything from them. I do not even hear the Conservatives proposing to make amendments.
It has been three years or four years since the government introduced its backstop formula. Instead of having concrete questions on how we could improve and amend that formula, they simply say they do not believe in this, without providing any alternatives. Yes, Canadians are concerned about affordability. We are as well. They also care and want a government that is serious about tackling climate change. It needs to be part of it. It cannot be one or the other; it needs to be both at the same time.
There are two more things. The Conservatives will talk about technology and working with large companies to be able to reduce emissions. That is all well and good. They do not recognize that those policies would come with costs to consumers as well. The entire idea of the federal backstop is to return revenues to households so we can incentivize individuals to make a change.
There is very little recognition from the Conservatives that their vague policy statements or lack of a plan, whatever it may be, would come with its own inherent costs. There is never a recognition from that side.
On affordability, last week this government introduced two different measures I hope all members in this House will support. They are the doubling of the GST rebate, along with dental care and housing affordability. These are measures the government is focused on. We do not want to compromise on reducing emissions. In fact, we want to help people make a transition so we can both reduce emissions and support affordability at the same time.
The Conservatives have a view that it needs to be one or the other. We have a view, on this side, that it needs to be both at the same time. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.
1522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said he has not heard anything from Conservatives. I would suggest he has not been listening. I commend to him the speech of the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition this morning, in which he talked very clearly about alternatives to simply tripling the carbon tax.
I want to talk about my own home province of British Columbia, which has had a carbon tax for a number of years. Emissions have continued to go up. It is the least affordable jurisdiction in North America when it comes to energy prices. The price for gasoline was $2.40 a litre in British Columbia this week.
People who live in British Columbia will be happy to know that when they involuntarily need to send money to Ottawa and Victoria, that is a pricing pollution mechanism. It is a market incentive for changed behaviour. What changed behaviour does this member have for my rural constituents who need to drive pickups to get to work to serve our communities, and for the farmers who need to drive tractors to produce the food we eat? What market incentive for changed behaviour is he proposing for them?
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:50:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague started by saying that the Conservatives had a lot of different options on the table to reduce emissions, and that the member for Carleton had mentioned them, yet he then spoke for the next 45 seconds without providing one single example of what the Conservative Party would actually do.
As it relates to the federal backstop, which is not in play in his home province of British Columbia, and indeed the parliamentary secretary is on record less than an hour ago, talking about the success of carbon pricing in reducing emissions in British Columbia, he might want to take up carbon pricing with the British Columbia government if he has an issue.
On the federal backstop, there is a provision to help support rural residents, recognizing that there are not as many opportunities for them to change behaviour. Whether that 10% is adequate is a conversation that could be had, but I do not even hear him making reasonable arguments on that. He simply says that they have solutions, without proposing any.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 1:06:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am still taken aback. Since this morning, I have been listening to my Liberal friends brag about their record on fighting climate change. In Quebec, there is a group called Mothers Step. I have met with them several times, since they have a satellite office in my riding, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. These mothers are worried. I would like to read part of their manifesto to my colleague:
We are mothers, grandmothers and allies who are standing behind the calls made by scientists and echoed by our children for a collective response to the climate emergency.
According to the IPCC, if we want to prevent global warming of 1.5°C or a catastrophic degradation of our climate, we need to cut emissions by a minimum of 45% over 2010 levels by 2030 and to be carbon neutral by 2050. That is why in 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recommended closing the door to all new fossil fuel supply projects.
The government did not do that.
What does my colleague have to say about this demand from Mothers Step In?
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 1:07:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I truly thank the hon. member for his concern. Before entering politics, I was a climate activist. I can assure members that I very deliberately joined the Liberal team because they were serious about climate action. We have spent over $100 billion on over 100 actions, trying to reduce our emissions nationally and stepping up to make sure we meet our Paris accord targets and meet our target of net zero by 2050.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations did indicate that our world is in peril. It is paralyzed and we are gridlocked in a colossal global dysfunction. It is important for all of us to share our best ideas on how we can accelerate and make sure that we meet our net-zero target by 2050.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 1:09:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the amazing member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
I have been looking forward to participating in today's debate to prove once again that the Liberal government is so misguided it actually thinks taxation would cause us to fix climate change. However, its own record shows that it continues to drive up emissions while costing Canadians more by raising carbon taxes on everything we do, not just a certain part of our economy but everything we do, whether it is heating our homes, feeding our families or driving our kids to sports.
We need to address how this is hurting us, especially in my province of Manitoba. I can tell the members across the way in the Liberal Party that the net cost to Manitobans, the fiscal and economic impact is $1,145 per household. If we look at the average cost per household in what we define as the middle class, it actually goes up to $1,600 per family. That is atrocious. The Liberal government is pickpocketing the middle class to the tune of $1,600 and making life more unaffordable.
We are talking about a carbon tax that is going to triple from where it is today, more than triple. It is going up to $170 a tonne. Right now it is at $50. That would keep driving up the costs of everything we do: the cost of living, our affordability, whether or not we could afford to go out and buy a new car or a new home. Everything would be impacted. I really feel for the people in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. We are a rural riding. People have to drive great distances. It is not like the people who live in a city who can just drive across town to take their kids to a hockey game. We often have to drive hours to get to the next-door community arena so the kids can play sports or to go to the school to watch a basketball game that the kids are participating in. Everything continues to add up.
Canadians who are living on fixed incomes, like our seniors, are the most impacted by the Liberal government's failed policies. We know that often in rural areas we have to drive for doctor's appointments, and specialists are always in the big cities like Winnipeg. That means getting in the car, driving down the highway and paying more and more just to go see the doctor, never mind if they have to go to Winnipeg or an urban centre for shopping or to visit family.
This is impacting our seniors. The Canada pension plan index continues to lag way behind what is happening with the cost of living. It has been exacerbated because of the carbon tax. It is falling farther behind.
I do not think the Liberals understand this, but the lifeblood of Canada is diesel. Everything we do is based on diesel, including the food we grow, the crops we transport and the products we ship around the world. The food is farmed with a tractor, and later it goes onto a truck, a train and a ship. We need to make sure that we are protecting the competitive advantage we used to have as Canada. We need to be protecting our food growers in this country. However, the Liberals are trying to put them out of business.
The Canada trucking industry said that, last year, the carbon tax cost the trucking industry $528 million. They are expecting that next year it would cost the trucking industry $1.2 billion in extra carbon taxes, and in 2030 it would go up to over $3 billion. Those costs are going to be built into the costs of everything we buy. Whether it is shipping clothing across the country, shipping produce in from offshore or shipping our own farm-raised products to markets across this country, it is going to mean higher costs for food for every single Canadian.
I do not know how the Liberals figure they are going to get out of that. Maybe they are going to take more of Canadians' tax dollars to try to buy their votes back, which is a Liberal thing to do, but we are undermining affordability for Canadians. We are undermining the productivity of our industries right across the board with this carbon tax, and we are diminishing our competitive advantage in the world market.
We are an exporting nation. We have to export to create jobs. We have to export to get rid of the surplus goods we produce here, including our agriculture products.
When the carbon tax first came in, it cost an average farmer $14,000 a year. It has gone up since then, and now the Liberals want to triple the cost of how much people pay in carbon tax to put fuel in their tractors and trucks, and to use natural gas to dry their grain and heat their livestock barns. Whether they have poultry or hogs, they have to be able to heat those facilities, and every time they do that, the government is saying, “Gimme, gimme, gimme. I want my carbon tax.” It is not going to change the farmers' habits. It is a necessity of how we raise our food.
This is having a huge impact, and to add insult to injury, the Liberals are charging GST on top of the carbon tax. It is a tax on a tax, and it is something the Liberals love to do. It is not about adding value; it is about adding tax. It is about putting more in government coffers and doing nothing with it to fight climate change.
We should be investing in best practices to fight climate change, such as carbon sequestration, which we can do on farms. Actually, with the fertilizer mandate that is coming forward from the Liberals, where they want nitrogen fertilizer to be reduced by 30% because they think this will reduce emissions, members can guess what happens.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. James Bezan: Madam Speaker, if the member for Winnipeg North wants to listen, he will actually find out why the Liberals' policies are so misdirected. It is because they are going to force more and more farmers to try to farm more land. However, guess what we cannot produce in this country. We cannot produce more agricultural land. What we are not farming now is not farmable, but what will happen is that crop production is going to push into what is right now marginal land for pastures and grass and supporting our ranching industry, which is very sustainable, from a climate basis. These are carbon sinks, but now we are going to be forced to till them at lower productivity with less fertilizer, which reduces the potential of that land even further.
I know the member for Winnipeg North thinks he can dig in any part of the country out there and is going to grow potatoes, but he cannot. There is only certain land that can produce potatoes or root crops, but especially when it comes down to growing cereals, soybeans, corn, wheat or canola. We have specific land capabilities, and if we are going to farm that marginal land, we are destroying wildlife habitat. If we are going to farm that marginal land, we are removing carbon sinks and being detrimental to the overall climate change policy.
This is very short-sighted on behalf of the Liberals, and it is something that continues to worry me. As the leader of the King's official opposition said this morning, the Liberals brought forward this policy even though they have been promoting, for the seven years they have been in government, to buy local because it would reduce the cost of transportation of the food we eat. Reducing the transportation distances and using less fuel to get it into urban centres will be good for the climate.
What happens with this model of carbon taxing and tripling the carbon tax is that we are putting the local farmer at a huge disadvantage and allowing individuals who are producing in non-regulated countries around the world, such as those in Latin America, those in South America and China, to bring those food products here. That, to me, is unconscionable. It should never be allowed to happen. Our own food security is being undermined by the Liberals and we have to stop it now.
1431 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
