SoVote

Feb/7/23 12:07:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises exactly the right point about the real impact for people. In my riding, and particularly in the Downtown Eastside, people can actually suffocate and die when there is a heat dome like that. In the SROs they are living in, there is basically no air circulating. That is why people took to the streets. If people want a solution, we need an investment in housing as a basic human right to address the housing crisis.

80 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Feb/7/23 12:07:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I am very pleased to speak today to our Conservative motion to cancel the carbon tax. People will often say that our role as the official opposition is to question the government and hold it to account, but they also ask what we would do differently if we were in government. Today, our motion to immediately cancel the carbon tax would give Canadians an actionable item to help address the 40-year-high inflation that is hurting households, farmers, not-for-profits and small businesses right now. I hope that all members in the House will support this motion. I look for every opportunity to bring the voices from my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country to Ottawa. With the debate today on the Liberals' failed carbon tax, I would like to quote Bob, who wrote to me recently. He wanted to inform me that his household had “just received our house gas bill, and we have a carbon tax of $32.24” even though his family had “installed a high-efficiency furnace”. Therefore, even when Bob takes action to reduce his carbon footprint, he still gets hit with a tax bill. There is a reason for that: The carbon tax is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. It is a classic high-tax Liberal move for the high-spend Liberal agenda. The results of this policy are now on full display. For Canada's climate change goals, the Liberals have missed every target they set and left Canada 58th out of 64 countries on climate performance. This is according to the new Climate Change Performance Index presented at COP27 last year. However, it does not have to be this way. The U.S. does not have a carbon tax; therefore, Canadian people and businesses are at a disadvantage because they have to pay more taxes than Canada's closest trading partner does. This Liberal carbon reduction plan is here to tax Canadians. I was speaking with a young woman recently who is a university student living in her parents' house. In addition to being stressed out for herself, she was also very concerned about her parents, which really touched my heart. She said her parents are middle class and she sees how hard they work. She said their household expenses are not keeping up, and she is worried about her parents' stress level and future retirement. After eight years, the Liberals' economic plan is to keep increasing the carbon tax, even though Canadian families, farmers, not-for-profits and small businesses are being squeezed by 40-year-high inflation and the largest jump in interest rates we have seen in a generation. The Bank of Canada's governor, Tiff Macklem, addressed finance committee members in a letter. He said that the Bank of Canada's experts have calculated that the carbon tax is contributing to the inflation crisis. According to Mr. Macklem, removing the carbon tax on gasoline, natural gas and fuel oil would have reduced the level of inflation that Canadians are facing. However, instead of giving Canadians relief, recognizing the generational inflation crisis in our country and eliminating or even just pausing the carbon tax increases, the Liberals are once again planning to increase the tax on April 1. This cruel April Fool’s Day increase is not a joke to the single parent who has to fill up their car to take their kids from school to appointments and extracurricular activities. It is not a joke to the small business owner who still holds over $100,000 in new debt because of government pandemic policies and who finds it harder to make payments and cover their bills every month because of inflationary cost increases. It is not a joke to the senior who sees their CPP and OAS pensions shrink compared with rising inflation, making them question whether they can afford their heating bill next month. Richard from my riding wrote to me recently, saying, “We got our first OAS cheque of 2023. It went up $2 per month. That means we can buy half a grapefruit once a month. How do the Liberals and NDP figure that helps seniors? When you figure inflation in, we have lost money, so there goes our half grapefruit.” Conservatives have brought the heartbreaking stories of many Canadians to Parliament. However, Liberal ministers shamefully brush them aside and continue to double down on the harmful policies that are squeezing our middle class. This Conservative motion today is calling on the government to give people a break and immediately cancel the carbon tax. The Liberals shrug off worry about the carbon tax hike and say that it is not a big deal because Canadians will be getting money back in rebates. In reality, despite what the Liberals claim, most Canadians will pay more in carbon tax than what they will receive back. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, a non-partisan office, has calculated that in provinces where the Liberal government has forced the carbon tax directly onto residents, most households will see a net loss in their income as a result of this tax. In provinces like B.C., which collects the carbon tax and leaves it up to the provincial government to determine if it gives any back to its people, the federal government still imposes the amount that has to be charged. By 2030, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, some households will be paying thousands more into the carbon tax than what they will receive in rebates. From the Parliamentary Budget Officer to the Bank of Canada and regular Canadians, it is very clear: This carbon tax is hurting Canadians, who are already struggling with a generational cost-of-living crisis. We have a housing crisis, an economic slowdown, and now, further tax increases. For residents in my community, an increase in the carbon tax means paying more for essentials from farm to table. I want to talk about how the carbon tax affects farmers. About 45% of the land in Kelowna—Lake Country is agricultural land. Farmers across B.C. and Canada are being hit by the carbon tax, and this is affecting our food security. Farmers know what the carbon tax does to their products. It raises the cost of growing, packaging and shipping them. This is multiplied if an agricultural product is turned into a value-added product, where the costs are added at each stage because of the carbon tax for production and distribution. Ultimately, these businesses make less, while some costs are passed on to consumers. This continues the cycle of ongoing inflationary increases the Liberals are creating with the carbon tax. One of Canada's top agriculture experts, Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University, told the agriculture committee that the cost chain will not just worsen if we continue with the carbon tax. Rather, it will collapse. Too many farmers across Canada are at risk of their farms falling apart altogether. I should not have to explain the domino effect that this will cause on our grocery bills. We have already seen a surge of food bank usage. The Central Okanagan Food Bank reported a yearly increase of 30%, which is similar to numbers that have been reported across the country. A family knows what the carbon tax means: a freezer less full, a fridge less stocked and a cupboard emptier. A restauranteur knows what the carbon tax means: higher costs for all their ingredients. In my opinion, the Liberals have a clear choice to make today, as do all members in this House. They can continue with their activist, inflationary agenda of increasing carbon taxes, which has been proven not to work since the Liberals have not met any of the greenhouse gas emission goals. Alternatively, they can acknowledge that after eight years of Liberal policies, they are causing inflation to be as high as it is and that they need to reverse course on their inflationary policies, which are crushing Canadians' pocketbooks and spirits. There is hope. A Conservative government will put people first.

1369 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

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

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Feb/7/23 12:17:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I do not believe those were the specific words I would have used. However, when we were looking at the last snap election in 2021, which was triggered by the government, we had ash falling from the sky in my community. It was really out of touch for the government to call an election at that time. Since then, we have seen record-high inflation. We have 1.5 million people a month going to food banks. We have 40-year-high inflation. It is not a good state. This is not the time to be increasing any taxes on Canadians, including the carbon tax.

111 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Feb/7/23 12:19:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate everything the member said, but all of that has absolutely nothing to do with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is just a tax. It does not reduce emissions. Adding this tax only makes the cost of everything go up, so they are really not related at all. The carbon tax makes the price of heating homes go up for people. The carbon tax makes the price of everything that is transported across the country go up, a lot of which is food and essentials. Today, we are talking about inflation. We are talking about the cost of everything going up because of the carbon tax.

111 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Feb/7/23 12:20:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals deliberately mislead Canadians on two points. The first is that they said they would never go over $50 a tonne, yet here we are on our way to $170 a tonne. The second is that they say that nine out of 10 are going to receive more money back than they pay, but they conveniently ignore the hidden costs of the carbon tax, which are on people's grocery bills and the general cost of everything. The clothes we wear have a carbon tax buried into them. We do not see it on our receipt when we purchase those items, yet it still exists. I wonder if my colleague has any comments about the hidden costs of the carbon tax.

124 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Feb/7/23 12:20:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, fist of all, we have to remember that this is a government that said, when it was elected in 2015, that it was just going to have little, tiny deficits. This is this government that is not exactly known for keeping its promises. When we are talking about hidden taxes, they absolutely add to the cost. They are called “cost of goods” or “cost of sales”. We see it as well in shipping, for example. Costs will be added on as fuel surcharges, and a big part of those is taxes. I remember hearing from many of my constituents before Christmas, and one was really relevant. He was shipping a very small container of Christmas baking, and the fuel surcharge plus all of the taxes were actually more expensive than the cost to ship the baking to his relative. Those are the kinds of things that showed up on his bill, but many times they will not actually show up on a bill. The hidden charges are definitely increasing inflation across the country.

179 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Feb/7/23 12:22:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country for her passionate speech. I think she demonstrated that the carbon tax does not need to be increased. That is what we are calling for. People keep saying in their speeches today that the Conservatives will not let up on this topic and that we keep repeating the same message in our opposition motions. Why would that be? It is because we in the Conservative Party want to work for Canadians. Economically speaking, we are in a precarious position. We are on the edge of a crisis, and by all indications, things are going to get worse in the coming months. Our Conservative conscience is prompting us to beg the government to give Canadians some breathing room. It is odd that we are being accused of hammering away at this issue. I think it is our duty as parliamentarians. Our Conservative values will always motivate us to go in that direction. I would like to remind the House that my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn moved an opposition motion today. It is clear. I am not saying that out of partisan pride or sheer stubbornness. We just need to take a good look at the situation. The first point in today's opposition motion states that “(i) the Bank of Canada governor has admitted that the carbon tax contributes to inflation”. It is not our partisan colleagues, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Liberals who are saying this; it is the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is important to understand that there is some separation. Perhaps that makes the information more serious, unequivocal and impartial. The Governor of the Bank of Canada is not the only one backing up our discourse and our request. The second point of the motion states that “(ii) the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that households will pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back”. The Liberals are saying that there is no problem with their tax because they are putting the money back into taxpayers' pockets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that, yes, there is a rebate, but it is not equal. Once again, this leaves less money available to Canadian taxpayers. The third point of our motion states that “(iii) the government plans to triple the carbon tax, which will increase the price of gas, groceries, and home heating”. That is a fact. Let us consider Canadian citizens. I hope that all members of the House meet with their constituents. People in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier are telling me that everything is more expensive. If the government were sensitive to those concerns, it would do what several other countries are doing and cancel all tax hikes. I think that is reasonable under the circumstances. That said, the Liberals and the government are not that sensitive. The Liberals have been in power for eight years. They talk until they are blue in the face about how the carbon tax is the best way to reduce greenhouse gases and how it is the magic solution. It might be the easy solution. The government is pocketing more money while seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadian taxpayers because there have been no results. Unfortunately, in eight years, there has been no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is more revenue flowing into government coffers. In this economic context, I believe it is reasonable to give Canadians a little bit of assistance. I would like to set the record straight on something. This morning, I listened as members of different parties described the Conservatives as climate change deniers. I want to make it clear that our leader recognizes climate change, but he is not in the habit of taking shortcuts and waving a magic wand. The past eight years have shown us what happens when one waves a magic wand. I have a document here. It is part of my notes, so I can show it to members. It is a chart from the Conference of the Parties, or COP, on the environment. There are 63 countries on it. At the top of the chart are Denmark, Sweden, Chile and Portugal. Then, in the next section, we see Egypt, Greece and Indonesia. Even further down the list, in the orange section, we see Thailand, Belarus and Turkey. Incidentally, I want to say that my thoughts are with the people of Turkey. I can only offer them supportive thoughts because, unfortunately, I am not there, but I think that the international community needs to take action to help the people of Turkey who are dealing with this disaster. I will keep going with the list. The United States is ranked 52nd, and Canada is ranked 58th. Ouch. Nevertheless, the government is determined to increase the carbon tax. That does not make any sense. As I was saying, the Conservative Party cares about the issue of climate change, and we have solutions. We are being accused of criticizing the carbon tax without offering solutions. As our leader mentioned this morning, we need to provide help to the clean technology sector. Canada is unique in that it is the second-largest country in the world behind Russia. The carbon tax may not be effective here. We should not be using the same model as a European country whose population is very concentrated when our country is very different. Let us do the smart thing and develop clean technology. Yes, it can be an economic lever. Money is the main thing, but that money needs to be raised honestly, by creating prosperity, not by taking it out of taxpayers' pockets through a carbon tax. Why not invest in clean technology? Why not develop it here? Canada has talent and know-how. We could then export that clean technology and make Canada a leader on the environment and on clean technology. Why not? According to an article on the Radio-Canada website this morning, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is focusing on Quebec's caribou population. He should instead be working on reducing greenhouse gases by identifying methods other than the carbon tax. He should let the provinces take action and look after their own territory. Quebec has a better record than Canada on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In their eight years in power, the Liberals have never managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In closing, I would like to quote a passage from the Radio-Canada article. In response to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Quebec's minister, Benoit Charette, said that he had the impression that the agreement reached in August with Ottawa would preclude federal intervention. He stated, “The federal government's approach in this matter is hard to follow”. It is hard to follow on many files. We need only think of the official languages file, Bill C-21 and McKinsey. I do not know if anyone is at the controls in this government. It is unacceptable that we are being criticized. We, the Conservatives, are working on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, and we will continue that work.

1218 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Joël Godin

Feb/7/23 12:32:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague speak in the House. He is a colourful and dramatic speaker. Perhaps my colleague, being a Liberal member, can provide that privilege to the 80% of his constituents who are getting back more money than they are paying into the carbon tax, but I would remind him that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that “households will pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back”. Those are not my words. The people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, meanwhile, have to pay their own way. They do not have that privilege. Is it because I am in the opposition? Is this a privilege given to Liberal ridings? It is a serious question, because I do not understand my colleague's intervention.

134 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/7/23 12:33:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report: The carbon pricing system is revenue neutral at the federal level, so any federal revenues generated under the system will be returned to the province or territory in which they are generated. Households will receive 90 per cent of the revenues raised from the fuel charge proceeds via a direct federal rebate. Similar to the results of our May 2019 report, we estimate that...households will receive higher transfers than amounts paid in fuel charges. Where did my hon. colleague find the numbers he mentioned? For households that would not receive the same amount, what is their income level?

113 words

Mr. Joël Godin

Feb/7/23 12:34:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. We both work on some of the same files. People seem to be getting lost in the weeds and straying from the debate. I think it is important to focus our debate on the fact that the carbon tax is abusive. The member for Winnipeg North says it is 80%, and the Bloc Québécois says it is 90%. The main goal of the carbon tax is to produce results and reduce greenhouse gases. The government has been in power for eight years, but it has not produced results, unfortunately. Whether people pay 10% and get back 15% or 20% is not the point. Those were examples I gave my colleague because he put that number out there. I quoted the Parliamentary Budget Officer. My colleague gave us numbers from 2019, but it is 2023.

151 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Feb/7/23 12:35:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are disadvantaging the province of Quebec. It is not receiving the rebate, as my colleague referred to in the previous question, but it is paying the carbon tax indirectly on goods that are being shipped into Quebec and being sold. It is paying for the cost of the carbon tax, yet it is not realizing the rebate that the Liberals are saying is going to make this whole entire program revenue-neutral. I am just wondering if my colleague would like to talk a little more about some of his constituents who are having to absorb these costs but are being disadvantaged by the Liberal government.

110 words

Mr. Joël Godin

Feb/7/23 12:36:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to say that Quebec taxpayers are being put at a disadvantage. There is no rebate in Quebec because it has a carbon exchange. Now, the carbon exchange must be harmonized. Recall that when the carbon tax was imposed—yes, I said imposed—on all provinces and territories, those with models that could match outcomes were exempted. Forward-thinking Quebec had taken the initiative and implemented a carbon exchange. Sadly, this exchange does not give credits to Quebec taxpayers, and that is very unfortunate. It was a Liberal government that put it in place.

107 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 12:37:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the chamber. I hope you had a great holiday. This marks the first time I have had the opportunity to be back in debate. I always love the opposition day motion. I will start by recognizing that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, who is no stranger to getting up and making sure he is able to share his wisdom with colleagues here in the House. Of course, I do welcome the opportunity, and this is the seventh time I have had the opportunity to speak to carbon pricing as it relates to Conservative opposition day motions. It seems as though that is all that party wants to talk about, and I look forward to engaging today on the topic. I have heard conversations about affordability and about climate change. What this comes down to is how we incentivize the technological and innovative solutions we need to reduce emissions. That is the key element here. Yes, there are other considerations, including affordability and how we actually tackle the existential threat before us, but it comes down how we drive that innovation to get to that solution. That is what I look forward to talking about today. However, I will start with why we have a carbon price in the first place. The science is clear that we have a major challenge in climate change, and the predominant concern is greenhouse gas emissions. As I am one of the younger members of Parliament in the House, my wife and I think about our future and having a family. At 32 years old, I want to make sure that, when we do hopefully have that opportunity to raise children in this world, there is a good future for my kids. Indeed, I think many Canadians, as well as everyone around the world, are thinking about how we make sure we preserve a planet and preserve a society that we have been able to benefit from. Notwithstanding all of the challenges, we are extremely privileged to call Canada and our world home. The enemy is emissions, not a particular industry. That is a point I want to raise as part of this debate, because sometimes I hear in the House that certain industries are bad, that with certain industries there are challenges and that we cannot be supporting certain industries anymore. I think the Minister of Labour does a very good job of saying we have to be laser-focused on emissions reduction and asking how we go about accomplishing that. My colleagues will know I am actually a pretty strong supporter of the Canadian energy sector. I remark on the technology and innovation that drove oil sands in Alberta. Is there environmental impact? Yes, there undoubtedly is. They have also been an extremely important economic driver for the country. They continue to be so. We are the fourth-largest oil producing country in the world, and I had an exchange with one of my Bloc colleagues earlier today. What I think we sometimes fail to remember is that, because of the revenues that are generated in this country and are then available through taxation purposes and shared through equalization, that industry has helped contribute to the social welfare of this country from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland and Labrador and every place in between. While I talk about the importance of the Canadian oil and gas sector, and the energy sector in particular, I talk about it through a lens of saying it actually has to innovate as well, because this is about reducing emissions associated with that sector. I do not villainize the Canadian oil and gas sector, but I also stand here and recognize that, if we do not drive innovation in that sector, it will not be around by 2050. How do we focus on the technology and solutions to make sure Canada can continue to be competitive in the global marketplace, while also tackling the existential threat around climate change and reducing emissions, that being the enemy? I do not see those things as mutually exclusive. Some members in the House would say I am trying to have it both ways, but is that not the Liberal approach? We are pragmatic individuals who try to find solutions to be able to get to shared mutual outcomes. At its core, the carbon price is a market mechanism. It is about actually trying to create incentivized change by putting it as a market price, and I sometimes chastise my Conservative colleagues, because at its core, it is small-c conservative. Many of my Conservative colleagues talk about the importance of the market economy and the importance of the private sector, yet when it comes to actual solutions to tackling the challenges around reducing emissions, they seem to want big, bossy government programs or they actually do not provide any solutions whatsoever. We know from the OECD and from the International Monetary Fund that a carbon price is actually signalled as the most efficient way to reduce emissions. There of a couple of things I want to mention. First of all, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, contrary to what is said in the motion, explicitly makes clear that eight out of 10 households are going to receive, and do receive, more money back than they pay in on a federal backstop carbon price. The PBO report also mentions that that number is not as high when broader economic costs are recognized. However, the idea that we can tackle climate change with no cost at all is simply a fallacy. Maybe my Conservative colleagues will not believe me, but hopefully they will believe Stephen Harper. In 2007, he recognized that the government at that time was looking at an emissions-trading type of scheme to incentivize the change I am talking about now. He said, “We happen to believe we've set it up so that those costs are manageable, so that we provide incentives for firms and sectors to exploit the technology opportunities that this regime requires. But the fact of the matter is it will cost.” Mr. Harper was right. There is a cost to transition, but there are also opportunities. The government has constructed its policy around carbon pricing to seek to drive innovation and technology where it is available, but also seeking to manage the costs associated with that transition to protect households. That goes back to the way this policy was constructed where eight out of 10 households come forward. That brings me to this question. If not this program, what then? My candid advice to the loyal opposition across the way is that I really believe that our politics and democracy in this country would be better served if the Conservative Party would say that, while it does not believe in what the government is doing on its carbon price system, here is our solution to drive that innovation and that technology. What a better place it would be. Furthermore, what if, while they do not necessarily agree with what the carbon price policy looks like from the government, they offered some suggested amendments that they think would better reflect them, to be able to get to that goal. That is not what we hear. Although, of course, I want it for Canadian democracy and the betterment of this country, politically I encourage them to continue to do what they are doing, because it is going to allow the parties that are actually focused on that to continue to govern and have electoral success. Canadians expect the ability to walk that nuanced line, and the Conservatives are not doing it at this point. There are areas where I think the carbon price system could be looked at and adjusted. Mr. Speaker, you and I are both rural members of Parliament from Nova Scotia. This is a harder sell in rural than in urban Canada. There is a 10% top-up. That is really important. I think that there is an opportunity to look at whether 10% is an adequate enough amount to make up for the difference between some of the lived realities of rural constituents and urban. That does not mean I am against carbon pricing. That means I would like to see if we could look at amendments. We never hear about any opportunity to amend and work within the system on the federal side. I also worry about the definition of “rural”. My understanding is that the way it is calculated right now is on a census metropolitan area. The Halifax Regional Municipality, or HRM, for example, would be considered an urban municipality, but not all areas within HRM could certainly meet the definition of an urban community. Those are little areas I think we could look at and that I think can make sure this policy reflects, attracts and benefits as many people as possible. The other element is small and medium-sized enterprises. As we move toward 2030, I think there has to be some thought given to their propensity to contribute and how we can incentivize a corporate return such that they are not disadvantaged over the long term. Again, there is a balance between industrial carbon pricing and the household level and how we tackle that as it relates to affordability. The last thing I would like to say is that sometimes the narrative from the opposition benches is that one cannot both put in place policies to try to fight climate change, to reduce emissions, and also support affordability. I would argue that those two things are not mutually exclusive. Look at programs this government has put in place around the greening homes initiative that allow homeowners to be able to invest in their homes to increase the equity that they have in those, but also to reduce their energy bills at the same time. In our region of Atlantic Canada, $120 million was announced by the Minister of Environment in October. Additional funding was announced by the Minister of Natural Resources that is specific to individuals who are on home heating oil, so they can make that transition to bring down the cost of their energy bills, put more money back in their pockets and also be able to help reduce associated emissions. Those are examples of policies where we can have the opportunity. The last thing I will say is that there are also really good ones on agriculture. I hope one of my colleagues will have the opportunity to ask me that question so that I can finish those remarks.

1783 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Feb/7/23 12:47:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as another Atlantic Canadian, I would like to ask the member about the carbon tax and the idea that government keeps raising taxes. People cannot afford the tax burden. Down east we have so many people who use home heating fuels to heat their home, prices are going up, and the government's solution is to try to catch that up with another government program. We have countless programs and rising prices. Our amendment is to scrap the carbon tax, bring down fuel prices, energy prices, particularly in the winter, and turn to technology. I hope the government will consider this and move in that direction, instead of making prices more expensive, which is what the government has been doing for eight long years now.

127 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/7/23 12:48:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. colleague missed the core element of my speech, which was, what is the Conservative Party actually going to do to incentivize that technological change? I have yet to hear anything from the opposition benches as to what that represents. The member talks about the carbon price as a tax. I do not refer to it as a tax, because all of the money is returned back to Canadian individuals and households. Indeed, in his own riding, in New Brunswick, where the premier has actually adopted a carbon pricing system, money is returned back. In my home province of Nova Scotia, in July, when this actually comes in, eight out of 10 families are going to be receiving more money back than they pay in. The member has to explain to his constituents why he does not support the idea of more money going back to households to support affordability, and also the programs that the government is putting in place to reduce emissions and to actually help fight the rising cost of energy.

178 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/7/23 12:49:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for raising constructive points on a day of debate where it still feels like all we do is discuss negative things. In the context of climate change, I think that the carbon tax is important, but we also need other measures. On Parliament Hill, there are people who are working in the area of energy efficiency to bring technologies to the table. This includes smart buildings, infrastructure, smart grids and industry 4.0 for a net‑zero future. I would like my colleague to talk about constructive proposals. Obviously, the climate change issue will have to be addressed on multiple fronts, including energy efficiency.

117 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/7/23 12:50:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. There is not one single silver bullet solution to tackle this challenge around emissions and fighting climate change. It takes a variety of different programs. We happen to be talking about carbon price, which is one of the key underlying principles. I agree with the member on energy efficiency. As a member of Parliament, as I have said in this House, what I worry about is how we are going to double electricity generation in Canada over the next 15 to 20 years. As we talk about making a transition to electric vehicles, as we talk about being able to decarbonize, that actually requires more energy and more electricity. How are we going to do that? Part of that is going to be accomplished through energy efficiency, but we also need to make sure we are focusing on the question of generation. Some of it has to be through hydro. I am absolutely pro-nuclear. I think that is part of the solution, in terms of a zero-emission technology that we readily have, and Canada is already seen as a global leader. There is energy efficiency, but how we are going to double that generation is one of the most important topics that every parliamentarian should be thinking about right now.

217 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 155