44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/7/23 10:17:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read from the Conservative platform that the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, ran on in the last election. It says, “Conservatives will work with the provinces to implement an innovative, national, Personal Low Carbon Savings Account. This will put a price on carbon”.
The leader of the opposition at the time, the member for Durham, said, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” The Conservative member for Calgary Centre, when commenting on that platform, said, “I think it's an evolution for parts of our party”.
We have now seen seven or eight motions similar to this one that have come forward in the House since the Conservatives ousted the previous leader. It has actually been 150 days to the day since this member became the leader of the official opposition, so congratulations to him.
My question—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 10:18:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the only thing that outdid that applause was when the member said he was splitting his time with somebody else, which goes to show how trained the seals are.
In any event, my question to the member is this: In 150 days, why has he not given a single idea to Canadians on what his plan would be for the environment?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I certainly admire the member's passion for putting a price on pollution. One will not hear an objection from this side of the House; it is the only way to go. If I am quoting her right, she said “polluters must pay”, yet I cannot help but reflect on the fact that the NDP has been supportive and plans to vote in favour of Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill would specifically remove a price on pollution, or the carbon tax, from certain sectors. If the member is such a huge fan of pricing pollution, why would she vote in favour of Bill C-234?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 12:17:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.
If the member is so opposed to a price on pollution, why did she run on it in the last election?
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 1:50:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is another day and another wasted Conservative opposition motion. I will note that this is the seventh time within the last year that the Conservatives have brought forward a motion that is either a carbon copy of this one or something very similar. I guess the Conservatives will not take no for an answer from the rest of the House, which continually votes against this.
The reason I find this to be so amazing is that every single Conservative sitting in this room right now, every single Conservative elected to the House of Commons in the last election and every single Conservative candidate who ran in the election in 2021 ran on pricing pollution. They all ran on it. It was key.
It took the former leader of the opposition something like 500 days to come up with a plan on the environment, and all he did was copy what we have, although he tweaked it a little and made it more like an air miles program whereby people got reward points and could get environmentally friendly products. That was their plan. That is what they ran on. They all ran on pricing pollution. I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but so did you. Everybody ran on pricing pollution—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 1:52:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives all ran on pricing pollution. Then they got elected to the opposition once again, immediately did a 180° and have brought in seven motions within the last year about pricing pollution. They are now clapping at their own flip-flop. I cannot make this stuff up. They are flip-flopping on their position. Maybe one of them can just get up and explain to this House why they ran on it and have now changed their minds. There could be a very legitimate reason for that. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for changing their minds, but they should enlighten the rest of the country by letting us know why they decided to flip-flop in such a way.
As a matter of fact, when they introduced this in the last election, the member for Calgary Centre said this about the price on pollution in their platform: “I think it's an evolution for parts of our party”. He admitted that the Conservative Party was finally evolving into hopefully accepting climate change as real, but also thinking that it was a good thing. That was the member for Calgary Centre, who will vote in favour of this motion and against pricing pollution, which is a complete flip-flop from what he first said.
The member for Durham, their leader at the time, said, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” Time after time, the Conservatives are coming forward in the House and completely confusing Canadians with their positions on this, given what they said during the election versus where they are now.
A lot has been said about the PBO and its recent report. I found it interesting that the member for Dufferin—Caledon, while asking a question of one of my colleagues, noted a follow-up report. He should know from the follow-up report, assuming he read it, that the PBO admitted that in the original report, there was no consideration of what the effects would be, economically and socially, in the event we did nothing to address climate change. The PBO therefore acknowledges that this was not a consideration in the initial report.
The member talked about cherry-picking information and using information in a certain way, but he is not even completely representing the report he is trying to use against the member who was speaking just before me. That is the irony of all this. The report the member referenced also mentioned that the PBO followed up and said that eight out of 10 Canadians would be better off under a pricing mechanism that includes a rebate. Of course, the Conservatives never want to tell Canadians about that. They never want to bother telling Canadians that they will get the money back.
When we say eight out of 10 Canadians are going to get more money back than what they put in, I am sure I do not have to explain that they will certainly be those who need it the most. It is not extremely wealthy people who will be getting more back than they put in. Again, the Conservatives want to gloss over that fact because they do not see representing the truth on that point as easy to talk about and as palatable. If they want to talk about the parliamentary budget office report, they need to start talking about it in its entirety. They need to start realizing and accepting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said eight out of 10 Canadians will get more back than what they put in.
I am left with a conclusion, which I have said many times in this House: How is this possible from the Conservatives? The Conservative Party touts itself as the steward of the economy, of good fiscal responsibility and of understanding how an economy works. How is it possible that a party like that cannot understand the basic, fundamental principle that if we put a price on something, it will change people's decisions and will change market behaviour? That is exactly what just about every economist in the world has said will be the result of pricing pollution. This is about making sure we are encouraging people to make the right decisions.
We do not even have to look that far to see the success. I have talked in the House many times before about how Quebec and Ontario were part of the cap-and-trade deal with California that was established around 2006. Quebec, Ontario and California got together and set up a cap-and-trade model. By the way, had Doug Ford not ripped it up when he got into the government, we would still have it in place and there would not be a price on pollution in Ontario.
What actually happened? When Doug Ford ripped that up and got out of the deal, he started removing electric vehicle chargers from GO stations. What has happened between then and now with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec? Quebec is light years ahead in terms of where they are in preparing for the future of electric vehicles and the future of increasing and building their electrical grid.
Unfortunately, because of Doug Ford's choices to completely move away from very important pieces of legislation like the one on cap and trade, we have ended up in a situation where Ontario is lagging behind. We were neck and neck with Quebec when that began and years into it. Unfortunately, we can already see the devastating effects of the decisions made by Doug Ford and his government once he was elected in Ontario.
I find it unfortunate that this is like Groundhog Day. Once again, here we are with the Conservatives and the exact same motion. We are all saying the exact same thing. We all know exactly how everybody is going to vote. This is going to end up just as it did the other six times. Hopefully, at some point, the message will get through to the Conservatives that this is a piece of policy the majority of Canadians are in favour of and that we will continue to use it.
1041 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:28:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying prior to the start of question period, it is unfortunate that we continue to see the same motion coming from the Conservative Party. It is pretty clear how the rest of the House, every other non-Conservative member, feels about this issue.
This is extremely problematic, in my view. All 338 Conservative candidates and every Conservative member who was elected in the 2021 election ran on a platform of pricing pollution. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, ran on pricing pollution. Now, suddenly, the Conservatives have done a complete 180° and are trying to suggest that it is not the way forward.
I could understand if they changed their minds. One of them could stand up and say, “Yes, we changed our minds; this is our new plan”, but none of them will do that. They are completely ignoring this, and they will not explain why they are taking a different position now. More importantly, after 150 days of his leadership, we are anxiously waiting to hear the alternative plan to be presented by the Leader of the Opposition to Canadians should the unfortunate scenario occur that he be elected as prime minister.
In any event, I hope we will finally see the end of these frivolous motions that keep coming forward from the Conservatives. We are now on the seventh one. Hopefully, the next time they have an opposition day, they will find something that better contributes to genuine solutions and compromise to make the lives of Canadians better.
262 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:31:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have answered this question several times in the past. When the member was asking a question prior to question period, he specifically brought up the PBO's report, and I referenced his question on that later on. If they are looking at how one element of something will impact the economy and society without considering all the other variables and inputs that go into it, they can draw pretty much any conclusion they want.
When I look at things holistically, either I can take up the anecdotal comments from the Conservative Party about pricing pollution or I can listen to the 99% of economists throughout the globe who say that putting a price on something will change and incentivize behaviour and habits in the marketplace. Forgive me if I do not listen to the Conservatives' rhetoric on this. I would rather listen to the experts.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:32:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the compliment from the member for Kitchener Centre.
We do have the luxury of being able to voice our individual opinions on this side of the House, so in my personal opinion, I do not support subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. I do not think it is a thing that governments throughout Canada or developed countries throughout the world should be participating in. There is more than enough profit to go around in the fossil fuel industry, and I personally do not support it. I exercised that belief through the vote the member referenced, but I also respect the fact that other people have different opinions on this. I will continue, both internally and externally, to voice my opinions and my concerns on various issues.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:34:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope the member appreciates that I will directly answer his question. I will not try to avoid answering it, as the Conservatives do every time I ask a question about changing their position on their platform.
At the time, I thought that was the right solution and now I do not. I realized that pricing something actually impacts choice in the marketplace, and I have changed my mind on it.
Do members see how easy that was? When someone changes their mind on something, as the Conservatives clearly did since the last election, it is okay to get up and talk about it and explain to people that they once had one position on something and now have a different position on it.
I would encourage the Conservatives to recognize my ability to do that, and I would encourage them to do the same thing as it relates to their platform commitment in the last election to put a price on pollution.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
