44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/7/23 10:32:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the price on pollution. We agree that the challenges facing Canadians right now are significant. You have well explained the increases in fuel prices over the last few months. However, there has been no increase in the price on pollution in that period. You are continually blaming it on the price on pollution, which is actually giving back more to most people than we are levying. Could you explain why these prices have been going up over the last few months, even though there has been no increase in the price on pollution, and why you continue—
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 10:37:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South.
I am pleased to take part in today's debate. I would like to say that the Conservatives introduced an opposition day motion to talk about the importance of fighting climate change, but they are not quite there yet.
The Conservative Party has had a new leader for 150 days already and yet it still does not have a plan to tackle climate change. It is anybody's guess as to when its plan will be ready. Last time, it took the Conservative Party nearly a year after choosing its previous leader to come up with a plan to fight climate change.
As many members know already, Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Our 2030 emissions reduction plan tabled last March lays out how we will get there. Pollution pricing is the backbone of our climate strategy. It is foundational, because it has been proven to work all over the world, not only to drive down carbon emissions but also to raise innovation and energy efficiency, and to create jobs in the emerging green economy. It also supports and amplifies every other climate measure, and creates an incentive to invest in low-carbon solutions across the economy.
Conservatives used to know this. In fact, carbon pricing is the kind of market-based mechanism that earlier generations of fiscal Conservative thinkers used to embrace. Many in the Conservative Party, including the Leader of the Opposition's own communication director, used to support carbon pricing, or at least he did until he started working for the Conservative Party. Today's Conservatives are penny-wise and pound foolish.
They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada. Today we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. The fact is that carbon pricing is central to our climate plan, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and the cost of doing nothing is staggering.
When we introduced carbon pricing in 2019, we were not only putting a price on pollution, but we were also putting in place the building blocks for the future we know we need for ourselves, for our kids and for our grandkids.
Our approach has always been based on a set of ambitious but realistic standards for carbon pricing, the federal reference that gives the provinces and territories the flexibility to implement their own carbon pricing system.
Setting the trajectory until 2030 provides certainty for Canadians and the investor community and will be transformative by creating incentives for the new technologies we need, for both our industry and society.
We have just come to an agreement with all the provinces and territories on increasing carbon pricing. I will reiterate that we negotiated a more ambitious price on pollution with each province and all the territories for the coming years.
I want to impress on the House just how foundational this price trajectory is to the success of Canadians' low-carbon economy and the jobs that will come with it.
Last fall, at COP27 in Egypt, I spoke with Brian Vaasjo of Capital Power, one of Canada's largest private sector electricity producers. Brian told me that pricing pollution and providing certainty and long-term predictability in pricing are key to unlocking investment on some very good projects, including a $2-billion carbon capture electricity project that would not go ahead without it. Susannah Pierce, president and country chair at Shell Canada, noted that Shell's big investment will not make sense without carbon pricing in Canada, and that regulatory certainty is the key to good business decisions.
The Conservatives have now abandoned the energy investors and energy companies, but they are pretending to be on the side of those facing energy poverty. Canadians have been riding the roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years, and Conservatives said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins from oil and gas producers. Instead, they make up a lot of misleading claims about the price on pollution.
Here are the facts. About two-thirds of the increase in what Canadians are paying at the pump is due to crude oil prices going up, largely because of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. Another 25% of the price is the result of everything from provincial taxes to refining margins, which have increased by more than 110% in the last two years. That means, all told, 95% of the price of gas has nothing to do with the price on pollution. In fact, the price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of Canadians, and it remains one of the best ways to fight climate change and keep our air clean.
Stakeholders across the country have told us that consistency and predictability are essential to promote investment in a low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce this pollution. They need incentives and clear support to commercialize and implement these technologies. Carbon pricing creates incentives without dictating a particular approach. It lets businesses decide on the best way to reduce their pollution.
What is most galling are the lies of omission and the things left unsaid, like those quarterly climate action incentive payments that go directly to Canadian households in backstop provinces every three months. For the first time, households in three Atlantic provinces will receive quarterly climate action incentive payments totalling hundreds of dollars a year. The first rebate payment will come in July, which is the same month that the fuel charge will take effect for the first time. The vast majority of households will never be out of pocket, with lower- and middle-income families benefiting the most.
Starting next July, a family of four in Nova Scotia will receive a climate action incentive payment of $248 every three months. In Prince Edward Island, it will be $240 per quarter. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be $328 every quarter. For an Ontario family of four, the quarterly payment will be $244 starting in April. In Manitoba, next year's quarterly payment will be $264 every quarter. In Saskatchewan, it will be $340. In Alberta, a family of four will receive $386 four times a year.
In total, 90% of the proceeds from the fuel charges are returned directly to Canadian households through the climate action incentive payments. The rest will be returned to businesses, farmers and indigenous peoples through various federal and provincial programs.
I want to say two things about affordability. First, I know how concerned Canadians are about household budgets in these inflationary times. I understand, and I share each and every concern that Canadians have.
That is why we are making sure that rebate payments go directly to households every three months, and eight out of 10 get more than they paid.
Equally important is the hard fact that if nothing is done about climate change, it will cost us far more. The parliamentary budget office recently estimated the cost to the Canadian economy of $25 billion per year by 2025 if we go about business as usual.
The status quo is not an option. Some may argue that we can simply go back in time and pretend that climate change does not exist. They would probably have better luck buying cryptocurrency.
Our goal is to keep life affordable while developing a clean economy, good jobs and safe communities. A stable, affordable and predictable price on pollution is a key component of that.
1297 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 11:19:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who also sits on the same committee as I do. There is one thing I find a bit surprising in the official opposition's position. The carbon tax is a market-based solution, and usually the official opposition supports market-based solutions rather than direct regulation. This is true of the cap-and-trade system. Every year, new money flows in from different sources.
Another thing I found surprising from the official opposition is that we are talking about a lot of money. Money is important for the Conservatives. However, let us look at a few figures. The current economic cost of the health impacts of pollution represents 6% of the GDP, and that figure is already a few years old. It is from 2018, I think.
People are being affected financially. They are sick and going to the hospital with kidney problems, asthma, pulmonary diseases and so on. That also has to be taken into account in the money taxpayers have to pay. All of these public health problems are a result of pollution, of industrial and oil and gas emissions, of all of the emissions that are in the air.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 11:20:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk a little bit more about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who was attacking the official opposition, saying that it has no plan, that its plan is non-existent. I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that, despite the price on pollution, the Liberal government is failing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Is that not a result of all the conflicting decisions, such as Trans Mountain, Bay du Nord and oil subsidies, that are undermining the efforts of this government, which talks out of both sides of its mouth?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 12:02:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated numerous times in this House that the government is putting a price on pollution. Actually, the NDP-Liberal government is putting a price on people, not pollution. Why does this member punish the people of this nation with bad policy instead of supporting technology that would reduce emissions and actually make a difference?
60 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 12:18:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague had a lot to say about food, agriculture and all that in terms of money. I would also like to talk to her about health. I have some numbers to share. Pollution is costly.
According to Health Canada, in 2016, there were 2.7 million asthma symptom days and 35 million acute respiratory symptom days, and those numbers are rising. Many of those days are lost work days, so there is an impact on productivity. It also means people have to spend more on taking care of their health, at the pharmacy and so on. Furthermore, pollution causes 10.7 million cases of kidney disease per year. That is the estimated global burden of kidney disease attributable to fine particulate matter. That costs people money too, and it is caused by pollution.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 12:31:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could explain to the 80% of constituents in Winnipeg North why the Conservative Party is saying that it wants to get rid of the price on pollution, the carbon tax, when 80% of the people I represent get more money back than they pay into it. In other words, a Conservative government would take money out of the pockets of 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North. How would he justify that action?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 1:31:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that eight out of 10 households have a net benefit and that they receive more money than they pay on the price on pollution or, as the member refers to it, the carbon tax.
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer makes that statement, is the member prepared to say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is wrong? It seems that the Conservatives are trying to spread misinformation to give the impression that if they get rid of the price on pollution, there is going to be tax break for Canadians, and that just is not the case.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 1:36:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.
It is a privilege today for me to stand to address this motion considering carbon pollution pricing. As hon. members in the House know, climate change is already having unprecedented effects on Canadians. We have seen the evidence all around us: in Quebec, extreme heat; in the west, floods and wildfires; in Atlantic Canada, extreme weather events such as hurricane Fiona. In fact, around the world, we would be hard pressed to find a time when extreme weather was not making devastating news in some part of the world.
The impacts from climate change are wide-ranging. They affect our homes, our cost of living, our health and our safety. It also impacts infrastructure and economic activity in communities across Canada. We know that the problem is carbon pollution.
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.
When we talk about taking action on climate change, the issue is not about choosing between our economy and climate change. It is well understood that the two really do go hand in hand and that the long-term health of our people, our planet and our economy depends on us taking ambitious climate action. The cost of inaction is enormous.
As emphasized in a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the cost includes more severe floods, forest fires, heat waves and droughts that cause environmental and economic damage. Weather-related disasters are costing Canadians more each year. It is rising from tens of millions of dollars to billions of dollar annually in Canada alone.
There are the benefits of action. I encourage members to look at the exponential market growth for clean technology all around the world. In fact, last year, global clean technology activity was anticipated to exceed $2.5 trillion.
It is no secret that we have had an extremely challenging couple of years. First, we had COVID-19, then a geopolitical and humanitarian crisis and now economies are struggling to adjust to the postpandemic world. It is not an easy time, yet climate change is the crisis that will persist if we continue to not take action.
I would like to emphasize that carbon pricing has proven to be the most significant and effective tool to combat climate change.
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 2022, we released the 2030 emissions reduction plan, outlining how Canada will meeting our 2030 targets. The plan builds on a strong foundation, starting with Canada's first-ever national climate change plan in 2016 and then our strengthened plan released in 2020. The plan shows that we can build a cleaner economy, while making people's daily lives better.
Carbon pricing is central to all these plans. Why? Because it is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce carbon emissions and drive innovation and energy efficiency. It creates demand for low-carbon technology, goods and services. As the cost of polluting activities increases, individuals and businesses seek out cleaner alternatives.
We have heard from stakeholders across the country. They have told us that consistency and predictability are key to unlocking investments in the low-carbon economy.
We have heard from businesses and industries. They have shown us they are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce emissions. They have asked for clear incentives and supports to put those technologies into practice, including runway time for capital investments to show returns.
Carbon pricing creates those incentives without dictating any particular approach. It lets businesses decide how to best cut their emissions.
At the same time, we know Canadians, especially the most vulnerable, are facing an affordability challenge.
When it comes to the federal approach to carbon pricing, we have not only designed it to maintain the consistency demanded by industry and investors, we have also prioritized affordability for Canadians. The bottom line is that it is not enough to create a cleaner economy. We need to ensure Canadians can afford it.
It is true that pricing carbon pollution modestly increases fuel costs, but carbon pricing has never been about raising revenues. In fact, under our plan, most households do in fact end up with more money in their pockets than what they paid. Whenever the federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families get more back through climate action incentive payments than they pay in direct carbon costs, meaning this system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families by offsetting their costs.
It is lower-income households that will 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 most ahead. These estimates take into account direct costs, like paying for more fuel, and also indirect costs, like paying a bit more for goods and services.
Families in rural and small communities are eligible to in fact receive 10% more than families in urban centres.
Households can use these funds however they want. They can use them to absorb the extra two cents per litre on gasoline if they choose. Any households can take action to reduce their energy use to come out even further ahead by going to something like zero-emission vehicles to reduce fuel consumption or federal purchase incentives that help to reduce the cost of heating.
The federal government is also supporting home energy retrofits in Canada, through the greener homes grant, to reduce energy used at home. They save money and cut pollution at the same time.
The Government of Canada has also committed to return the proceeds collected from 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. The proceeds that are collected in other backstop jurisdictions will be returned through the OBPS proceeds fund aimed at supporting clean industrial technology and clean electricity proceeds.
Climate change is a serious challenge, and it does not go away with the decisions we make in the chamber. However, we can mitigate the impacts of climate change and we can reduce climate change in the future.
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 and generate 65 million new jobs.
Just as we are putting a price on pollution, we are also making historic investments in clean technology. We are investing in green infrastructure. We are driving growth, creating jobs and including $9.1 billion in new investments to cut pollution and grow the economy as part of the 2030 emissions reduction plan.
Canadians have been clear about what they want: clean air and good jobs, a healthy environment and a strong economy. Our approach assures that Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition that is under way. I am happy to say that our climate plan is working.
Evidence confirms that putting a price on carbon pollution works. It spurs clean growth, supports jobs and cuts pollution causing climate change. Pricing carbon pollution and returning the proceeds to Canadian families and businesses is an effective and affordable way to combat climate change, while supporting the sustainability of Canadian communities.
Canada has established itself as a champion of carbon pricing and now has international recognition as a leader and an innovator on carbon pricing. Significantly driving the force behind our success is that the Government of Canada cares about the well-being of our economy, our environment and all Canadians today and for many tomorrows. We will continue to put them first.
1363 words
All Topics
- 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 2:32:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservative politicians are making a lot of misleading claims about the price on pollution. The facts are that 70% of gas price increase is due to crude oil prices going up, largely because of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. Another 25% of the price is the result of provincial taxes and refining margins—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 2:32:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative politicians are making a lot of misleading claims about the price on pollution. The facts are that about 70% of gas price increase is due to crude oil prices going up, largely because of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, and another 25% of the price is the result of provincial taxes and refining margins that have gone up by 113% in the last two years.
That means that 95% of the gas price has nothing to do with the price on pollution. The price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians and it remains one of the best ways to fight climate change.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 2:56:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I guess the question many Canadians are wrestling with is which Conservatives they should believe. Is it the Conservatives who, during the last election campaign, said they believed in climate change, and they believed in climate change so much they would put in place a price on pollution, or the Conservatives today who say they do not believe in either climate change or doing anything about it, let alone putting a price on pollution?
That is the question many Canadians are struggling with.
85 words
- 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 3:45:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, decades ago, Alberta was one of the first governments in North America to implement the principles of a price on pollution. We had individuals like Stephen Harper who supports the principles of a price on pollution. We have 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election who campaigned on the principles of a price on pollution.
A brand new, shiny leader, who is losing his shine awfully quickly, took ownership of the Conservative Party. Now they have taken a major twist that has turned into a flip-flop.
Why and how does the Conservative Party today justify rejecting the principles of a price on pollution when every other administration throughout the world seems to be adopting it?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:50:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate on environmental and fiscal issues.
Climate change is real. Humans contributed to climate change, so humans must contribute to reducing pollution around the globe. When I say humans, I am referring to everyone. I am referring to citizens, entrepreneurs, businesses, governments, states. I am referring to everyone. We must pitch in to reduce the environmental footprint of our actions in order to reduce pollution.
The path the government has taken to address the problem of pollution and reduce pollution is taxation. The Liberals love to say that they are putting a price on pollution. In real terms, it is called the Liberal carbon tax.
The minister was very proud to say earlier that this tax has only been in place since 2019. It has been around for almost four years, nearly half their time in power. That is not to mention that, starting in 2016, the government clearly stated that it was going to impose the Liberal carbon tax.
It is time to take stock. What is the actual, concrete result of this Liberal carbon tax? Has pollution been reduced? The answer is no.
This is why we do not like the Liberal carbon tax and want to put it aside. This is why we have a concrete plan to address the climate change challenges that we have to face and to be sure that we will have real results for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberal carbon tax is not delivering less pollution.
It is not me saying that. It is the entire planet acknowledging it. Let us start at home. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has clearly stated that the implementation of the carbon tax, which will start to triple in April, has a direct impact on inflation. Everyone knows that the number one economic challenge for every Canadian family right now is inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the Liberal carbon tax drives inflation higher. Canadians need that like they need a hole in the head.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded in a study that Canadian families get back less than they pay in. The Liberal strategy was to say that they were putting a Liberal tax on carbon, but that they would give Canadians and families a rebate so they would come out even. That sounds great in principle. It sounds great in the classroom. It sounds great to spout high-minded principles and virtue signal. However, the reality, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is that families are paying more than they are getting back from the government.
We know that, as of April 1, the government will begin tripling the carbon tax. That will have a direct impact on fuel, transportation, food prices and heating.
I talked about the whole world recognizing what the Liberal government is doing. Let us see the facts. A report based on a study by the United Nations was tabled at COP27.
In November and December, the entire planet gathered in Egypt for COP27. It is an odd place if ever there was one to talk about climate change, but it is not up to us to choose the location. It is up to the UN.
A report was tabled in the first few days on the track record of the planet as a whole, on the efforts being made to combat pollution and climate change. This report assessed 63 countries. I have that document here. The first study that was done provides a clear picture of how countries performed when it comes to dealing with climate change.
Canada, under this Liberal government, ranks 58th. We did not come up with this, the UN did. A panel of experts was created to analyze the 63 most developed nations in the world. Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries. These are people who have been constantly telling us for seven years now that “Canada is back”. They say that Canada is doing great, that we are making extraordinary efforts, that we have ambitious targets, that we are good for the environment.
I would remind the House that Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. The Liberals have always been sanctimonious.
That is what I had to say about tackling climate change.
Concerning greenhouse gas emissions, Canada, under the current Liberal government, ranks 57th out of 63 countries. That is not as bad, since it has moved up by one spot. That is what Canada is like with the Liberal carbon tax.
Concerning renewable energy, Canada ranks 52nd out of 63 countries. There are 51 countries that are more effective than this sanctimonious government.
Finally, if we look at the evaluation of energy use, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government, ranks 63rd out of 63 countries.
It is not the Conservatives saying so, it is the United Nations in a report tabled at COP27. The document concludes that, when it comes to climate change, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government that created the Liberal carbon tax, ranks 58th out of 63 countries.
“Canada is back” said the Prime Minister when he was elected. Canada is way back eight years later; that is the truth.
Those are the UN's rankings.
Let me also remind the House that those folks over there got elected by saying that Canada was going to be a world leader in the fight against climate change.
I remember one particular moment very clearly. The member for Papineau had not been Prime Minister for three months when he went to a conference in Toronto to lecture everyone. He said that, yes, for sure, Canada is back and that what matters is not just what is under our feet, but what is between our ears.
He was proud to say those words, as though when we were in government, we did not care what people had between their ears. How arrogant.
In fact, it is more than arrogant considering that, after eight years of a Liberal government, Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in the fight against climate change. None of the targets it set were met. Pollution was not reduced, despite the Paris Agreement. They said that the previous Conservative government's track record on the environment was abysmal, even though greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector were reduced by 2.2% during the eight years of our government. The Paris Agreement could have changed the world. What did the entire planet do in Paris in 2015? It used the exact same targets set by the Canadian Conservative government, to the decimal point.
What did this government do with that target? It did nothing, zero.
Out of about 200 countries, barely a dozen or so met the Paris target. Where does the Liberal Canada of this sanctimonious government rank?
It is missing in action. It is not among those who achieved the goal of the Paris Agreement. This is typical Liberal virtue signalling. What are the results?
That is why we see the Liberal decision to impose a tax as a tax plan, not a pollution reduction plan.
In addition, the Liberals plan to impose their vision and their numbers on all the provinces, including on us, on Quebec. Quebec decided to join a carbon exchange. This proves that the federal government did not have to get involved, because the provinces could have done it if they wanted to.
Prices were set, but the federal government decided it had the power to impose its own carbon price on the provinces whose system is different from the federal system.
We will see in April, six months from now, a year from now, once the Liberal government has tripled the carbon tax, how the provinces respond. What will happen when the government increases the carbon tax? The provinces will be stuck with it and will not have the right to say a word about it. We will see what the Liberal government does with that.
Our approach has always been clear. We want to use technology, not taxes, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone, all Canadians, individuals, businesses and governments, we all have to work together to reduce greenhouse gases using fiscal incentives, not punitive taxes. We also have to green-light green energy to make it more readily available to Canadians.
What our leader said when he became the leader of the Conservative Party and the official opposition was absolutely right. He said:
“Green light to green projects”. This is where we stand. We have a policy to help people, not to tax them.
1443 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
