SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 105 - Sep/29/22

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/29/22 1:18:06 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake.

9 words

Sep/29/22 1:18:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will give the member a little history lesson. In 2018, there were 22 PCs elected in New Brunswick, 21 Liberals, three Green and three People's Alliance. We had no government. I was the 22nd member, and my seat came in four hours after everybody else's. We had to somehow form a government. We did not have one. There was no actual winner of the election. It took a few more weeks to organize. It is the taxes the Liberals are putting on the backs of Canadians—

92 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/29/22 1:18:45 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

10 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Sep/29/22 1:18:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since today we are doing a rerun of Tuesday's motion, I am going to do a rerun of the Conservative government when it talked about what smaller government looks like. It meant a cut to Veterans Affairs of a third of the staff, which has led to a backlog of 50,000 applications. It meant a cut to Phoenix's payroll staff when it brought in Phoenix and made a boondoggle of it: It has cost us billions of dollars instead of saving millions of dollars. It meant moving a senior's working age from 65 to 67, cuts at DFO, cuts at CBSA, and the denial of critical infrastructure in my riding. When the Conservatives refer to smaller government, they mean cutting services to people. What services is this member going to cut when they go to smaller government, if they ever form a government in this country again?

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Jake Stewart

Sep/29/22 1:19:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here we have the NDP, which basically joined the Liberals, who were already in government, and now he is talking about cuts? What taxes are they imposing right now on Canadians, on home heating, on groceries, and tripling the carbon tax? I mentioned the salary range in my region. The NDP-Liberals are crippling Canadians with these new taxes. We have no lessons to learn except that, yes, we will be the government. I am glad the member recognized that.

82 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Sep/29/22 1:20:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have risen several times today, which is not to say that I am loquacious, although I may not be far from it. Each time, I have underlined the importance of having a vision for the future, rather than never seeing past one's nose. Unfortunately, my sense is that a tax reduction is not the answer. As my colleague has pointed out, we need to build more housing. Programs exist, but they are underfunded. Why not have an opposition day about increasing funding to the programs and organizations that have already been approved? That would lower housing inflation because it would increase supply. Why not have an opposition day asking for relief for farmers across Canada? Why this particular subject for an opposition day, instead of something long-term?

132 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Sep/29/22 1:21:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, why is it that the NDP are joining the Liberals, yet condemning them every day? That is the question I have, as do most Canadians. The story here is that they are imposing a crippling tripling of the carbon tax on Canadians. They are destroying young Canadians' opportunity to buy homes. Guess what we are going to do on this side of the House? We are going to give them back control of their lives and make Canada the freest country on earth. That is what we are going to do.

93 words

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC)

Sep/29/22 1:21:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack—Hope. I will remind everyone that today we are discussing a motion that states: That, given that the cost of government is driving up inflation, making the price of goods Canadians buy and the interest they pay unaffordable, this House call on the government to commit to no new taxes on gas, groceries, home heating and pay cheques. It is a pretty simple motion. Basically, we are asking the government not to make things worse. It has already gotten us to where we are today. The price of gas in my hometown in British Columbia is $2.25 a litre today. That means a student driving a Honda Civic has to pay over $100 to fill the tank to get to school. The cost for a mother to fill up her SUV is over $135, and a contractor filling up their pickup has to pay over $250 just for the fuel to get to work to conduct the duties they perform in our communities. In my community, that is often agricultural work. It is work done in the construction industry, work that cannot be done with a Prius, work that needs to be done with a truck. My community is rural. It is a community where there are not a lot of rapid transit options. There are long distances between places people need to go to. However, the Liberals want to make the cost of gas, which is $2.25, a record high, worse. They propose tripling the carbon tax next April. B.C. has its own carbon tax. It has been a failure on every level. It has not reduced emissions; it has increased the cost of everything in British Columbia and, unlike in some of the other provinces in the country, there is no federal rebate. The money goes to Victoria to spend as it sees fit. It gives some of it back in rebates, but the rest of it goes into government coffers. This is just what the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated, that 60% of Canadians pay more in the tax than they get back in rebates. I would anticipate that in British Columbia it is at least that bad, but this is what the government wants. It pays lip service every once in a while and pretends that it cares about these high gas prices, but that is actually what it wants. It wants the prices for Canadians to go up. It wants people who are driving their aged parents or grandparents to doctor's appointments to pay more for gas. It wants moms and dads who are taking their kids to after-school activities to pay more. We heard it in the House earlier this week. It is a market incentive somehow. It is trying to incent people to drive less. In my community, people have to drive to get from place to place to place. The government disrespects rural Canadians. It disrespects people who need to drive to get from A to B. It also disrespects, quite frankly, people who need to heat their homes. It tells seniors that it is going to drive up the price of their home heating fuel, whatever that may be, natural gas or furnace oil, etc., and that it is going to triple the price of the carbon tax, further driving up the fuel price. It suggests that maybe they can do without, perhaps turn the heat off. Seniors can shiver so that the Liberals can put more money in government coffers. It is unacceptable, and Conservatives are calling on them to stop making it worse. There are articles that we should all be aware of and be seized by: “B.C. soup kitchens, food banks struggling with increased demand, decreased donations”. We heard this yesterday in question period. The member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte indicated that former donors to a food bank have become clients, and, according to Food Banks BC, “the number of new clients accessing its 105-member hunger relief agencies has increased 50 per cent between December 2021 and March.” We are also seeing that the majority of Canadians are making changes to their grocery store habits amid higher prices. According to Bloomberg, almost a quarter of Canadians are cutting back on how much food they buy, because of higher inflation. This is more prevalent among female shoppers, such as single moms in many cases, with 29.6% of them buying less food, compared to 18% of men who are making that choice. It is not a choice, though; they are forced into it. What do we see? We know that when the price of fuel goes up, which the government wants, as that was its policy change and the effect it desires, the price of transportation goes up, which means the price of the goods that need to get to a grocery store go up as well. We are already at a 40-year high in grocery inflation. It is up over 10% year over year, and growing at a rate that is at a 40-year high. We have not seen these numbers since the eighties. The response of the government should simply be to stop making matters worse, stop raising the carbon tax and stop taking more money out of the pockets of workers through increasing taxes on their paycheques, which is what it is planning to do on January 1. I have heard the Liberals now say that it is not a tax and that these are not taxes. Their website says they are taxes. The Government of Canada's website lists these as taxes because they result in lower take-home pay for Canadians. Paul Martin thought they were taxes when he made it a priority to make the country more efficient and more competitive. He said payroll taxes kill jobs and drive down competitiveness. He got it, but he would not recognize the Liberal government today because it has abandoned all of its fiscal anchors. It has completely— Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I wonder what Brian Mulroney thinks of that. Mr. Mark Strahl: Madam Speaker, the member does not seem to care that the price of food has gone up for Canadians. He laughs when I bring up things about food banks. He simply cannot stand to hear the truth, and he wants to make it worse. The member for Kingston and the Islands wants to vote to make gas prices higher. He wants to vote for less money in the pockets of Canadians. He can defend that, and I will defend cutting taxes and holding the line for Canadians. If the member is not hearing from his constituents about affordability, that means he is not listening, which would put him in good company with the Liberal government. All of us on this side of the House are getting messages. A message I received said the following: Budgets were tight and money was short before, and now with rental prices almost doubling, gas higher than we've ever seen, and grocery prices increasing, it is getting impossible to afford the bare necessities. Having a child, I'm not left with many options. I already have a second job, living in my car is not an option and moving back with parents also would not work so I'm not sure what else I can do. Will there be any solutions? I know I'm not the only one struggling. For this constituent, the solution is not to have more money taken off her paycheque. The solution is not to have more money taken away from her when she has to fill up her car to take her son to school. She said she had to drop out of university because the affordability is so bad under the government. Another constituent wrote: My husband and I work full time [at] great paying jobs and we are still struggling. [We] can hardly afford groceries because the costs are rising in B.C. The fact that families cannot even purchase groceries without repercussions is astonishing to me. We are dual income...and we struggle. We don't spend on anything but the bare minimum necessities and even then sometimes we try to do without. People are struggling and the government is threatening to make things worse. It is set to raise taxes on paycheques on January 1. This motion calls for it to stop that. It is set to raise prices on gas, groceries and home heating in April. We are calling on the government to stop those tax hikes. We will be voting to protect the interests of Canadian workers and Canadian families, and to leave more money in their pockets, because they know how to spend it better than the wasteful Liberal government.

1492 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Sep/29/22 1:31:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Chilliwack—Hope comes from a rural area, so he knows what a load of meadow muffins looks like, and that is what he has just delivered. In British Columbia, the revenue from the price on pollution goes to reduce income taxes. We pay the lowest income taxes in the country in British Colombia. There has been no increase in taxes on gasoline, so how does he explain the fact that gas prices are $2.30 and headed for $2.50? I would suggest to the member that British Columbians and Canadians are facing the same situation as western Europe is facing with Russia. The oil companies are gouging us, and the sooner we cut these guys out of the equation, the better for everybody.

130 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl

Sep/29/22 1:32:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member from British Columbia is not listening to his constituents. They are struggling, just as my constituents are struggling. However, he says that we have never had is so good, that at $2.25 a litre, what is the big deal? To them it does not matter, and they are going to raise the price, which is what the Liberals are promising to do. They will triple the carbon tax, which will turn $2.25 a litre into three dollars a litre under that member's plan. The member can go back to Fleetwood—Port Kells and try to sell that. I will stand up for the people of Chilliwack—Hope to demand that these taxes not be raised.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Sep/29/22 1:33:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are hearing all sorts of things today, just like last Tuesday. It is more or less the same. I am not even sure where to start. Does my colleague realize that the oil companies are a price-fixing cartel and that lowering taxes will simply increase their profit margin? Look at the current inflation. Analyzing the numbers, it is clear that their profit margin has increased. This is not just because of nasty government taxes. What we need to do is to redistribute money to people in need. I would like to have an answer to that, because I have tried and tried, yet I have not gotten any response. In the past, people in the Conservative Party seemed to agree with increasing old age pensions starting at age 65. That is a concrete measure to increase the standard of living for people who are struggling on a fixed income. Enough with the populism and combining all sorts of issues. We need a clear answer to the question. Will they agree to increase the old age pension for those who are struggling to buy groceries today, yes or no?

192 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl

Sep/29/22 1:34:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course, my colleague is wrong about the issue with gas prices. When governments across the country cut sales taxes or gas taxes in places such as Alberta, the prices plummeted overnight. The price per litre plummeted for people in those regions. For people in regions like mine, we had another motion where we tried to get the GST cut on fuel and to suspend the carbon tax. Of course, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and Liberals all voted to keep gas prices nice and high, because that is actually what they want. When we talk about the standard of living for seniors, in my riding, seniors who drive to see their grandkids or drive to their doctor's appointments are paying $2.25 a litre. If the member wants that price to go up, he will have to come through the Conservative Party to make that happen.

154 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Sep/29/22 1:35:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last November, the member's riding was devastated by an atmospheric river, which resulted in billions of dollars of damage right across B.C. I am just wondering when Conservatives will start talking about the inflationary effects of climate change. Secondly, if the member is going to talk about the rising cost of food and fuel, but completely neglect the profiteering of large corporations and the profits they are making off the backs of working families, then that is some extreme cognitive dissonance. Will that member stand up for his constituents and join with the NDP to call out corporate profiteering to make sure that we are actually helping families?

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl

Sep/29/22 1:35:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what would have helped in my region of the Fraser Valley would have been raising the dikes, not raising the carbon tax. We could have used multiple governments, including the NDP B.C. government, which had failed to invest in the infrastructure necessary to protect our communities. My constituents are tired of hearing about fancy conferences around the world where they discuss raising the price of everything. They want to actually see investments in infrastructure that will protect our community. That is what Conservatives believe in. We do not believe in raising the price of everything through a carbon tax.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.)

Sep/29/22 1:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. I could not be more opposed to this opposition day motion. I am not sure how they could pack more falsehoods into one short motion, but they have certainly done their best. It is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to this motion, although I am opposed to it. These past few years have not been easy with the pandemic and its impacts, and now we have the war in Europe and the rising cost of living. It is easy to point fingers and call out for quick solutions, but it is reckless to take advantage of the challenges communities across Canada and the globe are facing. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide ranging, affecting our homes, cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety and economic activity. Of course, we have seen disruptions in our supply chains and how that contributes to inflation right across Canada in all of our communities. 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. However, in taking action, it is no longer a question of choosing between our economy and climate action. It is well understood that the two go hand in hand and that the long-term health of our people, our planet and our economy depend on our taking ambitious climate action. That is what Canadians want to see. They want to see that from the government, and they want to see that from the opposition parties. They want to see us raising our level of ambition and not backing off and going backward, as the Conservatives would have us do, into the Harper era of inaction. Let us look at some of the actions that our government is taking. In April 2021, the Government of Canada responded to the latest science by submitting a strengthened national emissions target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, in addition to its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. In March of this year, the government released the 2030 emissions reduction plan, outlining how Canada will meet our 2030 target. The plan builds on a strong foundation, starting with Canada's first-ever national climate change plan in 2016 and then our strengthened plan, which was released in 2020. I could not be more proud of the work that this government did in consultation with provinces and territories right across the country in order to develop our climate action plan. The plan shows that we can build a cleaner economy while making people's daily lives better. Carbon pricing is central to all of these plans because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I know members on the opposite side do not believe that carbon pricing is the way to go, but there are many case studies and examples across the world that show it is by far the most effective system for incentivizing the type of behaviour we need to see and the type of innovation we need to see in order to get to a sustainable economy. We have heard from stakeholders across the country that consistency and predictability are key to unlocking investments in the low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce emissions, including carbon capture. There are many other technologies out there. There are many renewable energy projects and things that we can be investing in. They need clear incentives and supports to put those technologies into practice. That is what our government's plan intends to do and is actioning. Carbon pricing creates those incentives without dictating any particular approach. It lets businesses decide how best to cut their emissions. Let us remember that, if they do not pollute, they do not pay a carbon price. At the same time, Canadians, especially the most vulnerable Canadians, are facing affordability challenges. We get that. The federal approach to carbon pricing is designed to maintain the consistency demanded by industry and investors while prioritizing affordability for Canadians. We know it is not enough to create a cleaner economy. We have to make sure that Canadians can afford it as well. It is true that carbon pricing of pollution is modestly increasing fuel costs, by about 2¢ per litre of gasoline this year. We know every bit counts, but carbon pricing has never been about raising revenues or raising prices on Canadians. In fact, under our plan, most households end up with more money in their pocket than they pay. Wherever federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families get more back through the climate action incentive payments than they pay in direct carbon costs, meaning the system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families. Let us remember, just this July, Canadian families got the first quarterly payment, which was a double payment. In Ontario, they are getting $745 this year, and they got half of that. I noticed that come into my bank account. I am sure many other members of the House and their families noticed that direct quarterly payment from the climate action incentive. Members on the opposite side cannot claim that those dollars, 90% of those funds, are not going back to Canadian families, because they got those payments in their bank accounts. It is lower income households that benefit the most. High income households tend to spend a lot more on fuel and energy, so they will face a net cost. However, the lowest income Canadians come out the furthest ahead. For example, the average cost impact of carbon pricing per household in Alberta is expected to be about $700 in 2022, but this is less than the average climate action incentive payment of about $1,040 per family. In Ontario, the average household cost is estimated to be about $580, but households will receive back, on average, about $710 to $745. These estimates take into account the direct costs, like paying more for fuel, and also indirect costs, like paying a bit more for goods and services. Families in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10%. Households can use these funds however they want. They can use them to absorb the extra 2¢ per litre of gasoline if they choose. Households that take action to reduce their energy use come out even further ahead. Zero-emissions vehicles are an option, with federal purchase incentives helping reduce the cost. The federal government is also supporting home energy retrofits, through the Canada greener homes grant, to reduce energy used in the home, save money and cut pollution all at the same time. The Government of Canada has also committed to return proceeds collected from the federal output-based pricing system, or OBPS, to the jurisdictions of origin. Provinces and territories that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in other backstop jurisdictions will be returned through the OBPS proceeds fund aimed at supporting clean industrial technologies and clean electricity projects. Climate change is a serious challenge, but it is also an opportunity, a very big economic opportunity. Canadians want to take advantage of the significant economic opportunities in the low-carbon economy. Analysis by the global commission on the economy and climate estimates that transitioning to a low-carbon economy will deliver a direct economic gain of $26 trillion U.S. and generate 65 million new jobs globally. Just as we are putting a price on carbon pollution, we are also making historic investments in clean technology, innovation and green infrastructure to drive growth and reduce pollution, including $9.1 billion in new investments to cut pollution and grow the economy as part of the 2030 emissions reduction plan. The 2030 emissions reduction plan, Canada's next steps to clean air and a strong economy, reflects submissions from over 30,000 Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous partners, industry, civil society and the independent net-zero advisory body. The plan represents a whole-of-society approach, with practical ways to achieve emissions reductions across all parts of the economy. Canada is not alone, by any means, 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, and it is far greater than the cost of addressing it today. As emphasized in the most recent IPCC report, the cost of inaction is—

1490 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Sep/29/22 1:46:44 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but the hon. member has run out of time. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

22 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Sep/29/22 1:46:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I have been listening to the debate today, I have heard a lot of stories of Canadians who are struggling. A woman just reached out to me on my social media. She does not even live in my riding. Her name is Sarah. She says that she and her husband both work outside the home. They live paycheque to paycheque. They are embarrassed to admit that they have had to ask their parents for money to help pay bills. They have to choose whether they will pay for food or home heating this month. They have to decide whether they will pay for power or water or what the least expensive sport is to put their kids in so they can have fun and learn a skill and a team sport. How does the hon. member justify increased payroll taxes and the tripling of the carbon tax when it is burdening Canadians?

155 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Sep/29/22 1:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is most disturbing is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not take the climate emergency seriously. What is interesting is that the Conservatives seem to purport to care about climate change, but put it at odds with the pocketbooks of people. In fact, we have to do both. We have to fight climate change, build a stronger economy and make life more affordable, which is exactly what our government is doing.

75 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Sep/29/22 1:48:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the start of the summer in my riding, we spent our evenings and weekends working very hard to deliver passports to Quebeckers who wanted to go abroad. I think that was true of most Bloc Québécois members. Those of us in Quebec spent our weekends working very hard to do that. Yesterday we learned that top federal public service executives received $190 million in bonuses. These are the very same individuals who failed to deliver passports to people. MPs' office staff had to do their job for them. Does my colleague think that money would have been better spent increasing old age security, building social housing or upping health transfers?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Sep/29/22 1:49:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure how this pertains to the Conservative Party's opposition motion, but I have seen the issues with passports and the backlogs continue to get better based on our minister's willingness and ability to take a lot of real-time feedback, address the concerns. We continue to hire new staff and ensure that the process in passport approvals and processing get better and better. Certainly, we can continue to improve upon that. I am not sure what the member opposite is referring to with regard to manager's bonuses.

95 words

All Topics