SoVote

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/1/23 10:26:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I wish the Conservative Party would stop with the populism. They have been shouting at us for almost a year, for example, that the government has been in power for eight years, when it will actually be eight years in October. Of course, if they say it enough times, it will eventually be true. Today, all sorts of things are being said. Puns are being made with the Prime Minister's first name. All day, we hear talk about “common sense”. A person can claim that something is “common sense” all day long, but it has to be put into practice all year long. Would my colleague not agree that people can show “common sense” but still take moderate measures to ease the impact of the carbon tax, the way that Bill C‑234 does? I am quite proud of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We reached a reasonable comprise to help people through the transition. Does my colleague acknowledge this? This is my first question. My second question is: What will the Conservative Party do to address climate change? When will it realize that climate change exists? There are wildfires burning now.

210 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Jun/1/23 10:27:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, right now as we speak, Canada is experiencing major climatic shifts. The Atlantic provinces have seen flooding and forest fires. Quebec is seeing more and more forest fires. What impact has the carbon tax had in preventing these events? None. The Department of Finance estimates that between the years 2019-20 and 2022-23, the federal government accumulated $21.2 billion in revenues from carbon pricing. Of this money, SMEs received only $35 million in assistance, or compensation, as my colleague put it. That is preposterous. This is not a plan to fight climate change; it is a plan to tax Canadians.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/1/23 10:28:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to read a brief passage to my friend from Mégantic—L'Érable. It states: We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline (and other liquid fuels) we burn, turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Our improvements will include: Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia’s policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels.... That is from the 2021 Conservative election platform, a platform that my friend from Mégantic—L'Érable ran under. Now the member is saying the exact opposite, and I am wondering if somehow we can harness this Conservative policy weather vane as a source of renewable energy. What are his thoughts?

139 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Jun/1/23 10:29:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just a few months ago, the leader of the NDP was praising the special rapporteur, saying that the government had made the right decision in appointing a special rapporteur to investigate foreign interference. Yesterday, the NDP leader called for his dismissal, so I will take no lessons from the NDP, considering all of their flip-flops.

58 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Jun/1/23 10:29:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate that affects all families, particularly following such an eloquent speech by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. Climate change is real. Humans played a role in creating climate change and so humans have a role to play in reducing its effects. The government is proposing a tax to reduce the impact of climate change. That is not the path that we are taking. As we speak, we know that 1.5 million Canadians used food banks this month. One in five families will skip a meal this week because they do not have enough money in their pockets. Inflation is the highest it has been in 40 years. That is the daily reality of Canadian families. The government is saying that, in order to provide direct assistance to Canadian families who are struggling because they do not have enough money in their pockets and have to skip meals, it has to impose a new tax. The government has to create a new tax and take even more money out of people's pockets. For years, Canadians who have been saving have noticed that, under the Liberal government, the price of housing has doubled, the cost of borrowing to buy a house has doubled and the down payment required to buy a house has doubled. All of that has happened in the eight years that the Liberal government has been in power. Families are having a hard time. The government's brilliant idea for helping Canadians is to create a new tax, the Liberal carbon tax 2.0. The Liberals think that the issue of climate change can be solved by taxing Canadians, but we believe that that is not the answer, especially in inflationary times. Let us get one thing straight. The system in Quebec is different from those in other provinces. Quebec has a carbon exchange. One thing that everyone seems to forget in this debate, especially the Liberals and the NDP, is that, in passing the act that created the Liberal carbon tax, the federal government gave itself the right to impose a price on carbon in all of the provinces, regardless of whether or not they had a carbon exchange. The federal government was the only one that knew how much more this would cost. The Liberal federal government wants to impose its philosophy on everyone. It is unfortunate to see people who call themselves nationalists agreeing with the invasive approach taken by the Liberal government, aided and abetted by its pal, the NDP. For eight years, the Liberal government has been in power. For eight years, the government has been lecturing the entire planet. “Canada is back”: That is what the Prime Minister was so proud to say in Paris in 2015. Canada is way back; it is really way back. In the last eight years, the government has failed to reach any goals, except one during the COVID tragedy. If the government's plan is to shut down the economy in Canada to achieve its goal, I do not think this is the right way to go, and it is certainly not the one we will follow. This government talks a good game but never follows through. Need I remind members that the Minister of Environment, the founder of Equiterre, is now being personally sued because, according to the document filed with the Federal Court on May 6, 2022, the government talks a lot, but fails to react or take any concrete actions? The Conservatives are not the only ones who can see that the government's track record on climate change is mediocre. The United Nations sees it too. Last November in Egypt, which is a strange place to hold a conference on climate change, but that is the venue the organizers chose, the United Nations tabled a report on the performance of the 63 most important countries in the world for fighting climate change. “Canada is back”, he said eight years ago. What did the UN think? It ranked Canada 58th out of 63 countries when it comes to climate change. That is what the report says, and that number is not all. Let us look at another table. How does Canada rank among the 63 countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? It ranks 57th. That is not bad. It moved up a rung. “Canada is back”, indeed—way back. Now let us talk about renewable energy. How is Canada doing after eight years of Liberal government? It ranks 52nd out of 63, yet it is telling the whole world what to do. In terms of energy consumption, we are not doing at all well. Canada ranks 63rd out of 63. Canada certainly is back, at the back of the pack. It could not go any lower, since only 63 countries were evaluated. The upshot is that Canada, which loves to lecture everyone else, ranks 58th out of 63. We are not the ones saying that. It comes straight from the UN, yet the Liberals want to tell us what to do. As I said earlier, pollution is real and must be reduced. Everyone has to work together to reduce pollution. The Liberal approach of imposing a Liberal tax on carbon is not the right way to do that, much less when this tax is doubled. For Canadian families, that means $573 more. For Quebec families, it is $436 more. This is in addition to the carbon exchange that exists in Quebec. As my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable said, according to the report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, there is an effect, but it is difficult to pinpoint the price exactly because it is the business that must absorb the costs. The second Liberal carbon tax will have a direct impact, in that families will need to pay $436 more. Why does the Liberal carbon tax not work? If every country in the world had a carbon tax pegged at the same level, we could look closely at that, but this is not the case. I would remind members that, geographically speaking, we have a rather imposing neighbour to the south. There are 40 million Canadians compared with more than 300 million Americans. The U.S. is our next-door neighbour and our most significant financial partner, but it is also our greatest competitor. Our economies are interconnected, and we are proud of that, we are privileged, but we still have to participate on equal terms and get the same results everywhere, so that we can then conquer the world. The carbon tax does not exist in the President Biden's United States. I was very proud to welcome the President of the United States here. He was just a few feet away from me. There is no denying that it was exciting. He has taken a leading role in the global fight against climate change, yet he does not impose a tax in his own country. Why should we Canadians have one, when our main neighbour, main partner and main competitor does not have one? Perhaps it is because the United States knows it is a risky move to go after American families directly. That is not to mention the fact that our country generates 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, whereas the United States generates 14%. We also know that China is responsible for one-third of the world's pollution and that India produces an enormous amount of pollution. Many emerging countries are increasing their environmental impact because their economies are doing better. We must keep that in mind. The last time I checked, pollution travels. I have never seen a CO2 molecule travelling with a passport. Pollution knows no borders. If other places in the world do not have the same measures as we do in Canada, then we are just undermining our economy without obtaining the tangible results we are trying to achieve. We believe that we need to take specific concrete action to reduce pollution with tax incentives for investing in the high-tech sector, that we need to give the green light to green energies, that we need to be proud of our Canadian expertise in exporting around the world, particularly to emerging countries, and that we must do all of this with the support and co-operation of the first nations. Those are the four pillars that will help us to combat climate change. That is what we need to do, rather than taxing Canadians.

1449 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 10:39:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague. First, he spoke about the American approach. It is true that the Americans have not put a price on carbon, except in California. They prefer subsidies. In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act contains $329 billion in subsidies. Would my hon. colleague prefer that we spend more to achieve our goals? Second, he claims to be a nationalist, but all of Quebec's governments—the CAQ government as well as previous Liberal and PQ governments—have advocated for a price on carbon. Why are the Conservatives diametrically opposed to Quebec's policies?

108 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Jun/1/23 10:40:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Quebec has never supported the idea of Ottawa imposing a price on carbon. This centralizing, overreaching Liberal government is imposing a major change on the provinces. Ottawa knows what the price is, but the provinces do not. This is a direct attack on the provinces' responsibilities. I want to say one thing about everything that is being done. The companies are the ones polluting, and they know how and why they are polluting. They are also the ones who know how to reduce pollution. It is not up to Ottawa to tell them how to do it, especially not by increasing their taxes. They should instead be given tax incentives so that they can directly reduce pollution in a concrete and real way. It is everyone's duty to reduce pollution, but it is not Ottawa's job to tell them how to do it, on top of imposing a tax. No, it is up to businesses to do it, with tax incentives. Giving tax incentives does not mean giving subsidies as the current government is doing.

180 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Jun/1/23 10:41:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, there are some fallacies in the objectives of this proposal. At the same time, we can acknowledge that some people are struggling with inflation. I just finished a visit where I met with seniors. There is definitely cause to ask the federal government to do more for the most vulnerable. However, continuing to rely on oil and hydrocarbons to contribute to socio-economic conditions seems to be exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Why is my colleague stuck on the idea of denying climate change and continuing to increase its effects by promoting oil and gas?

108 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Jun/1/23 10:42:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: Climate change is real and we need to address it. The member from the Bloc Québécois is very proud of Quebec, I am sure. I am too. However, in the past year, the Quebec nation consumed 18 billion litres of oil. It is not me saying that, it is the Hautes Études Commerciales school of business, or HEC. That is the reality for Quebec families. Quebeckers still need oil, just like everyone else around the world. If we suddenly no longer needed it, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. Quebec needs 18 billion litres of oil. Does the member really want us to cut Quebec off from all oil? I do not think so.

139 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 10:43:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always a bit shocked to see the Conservatives, who believe in the free market and capitalism, refuse to put a price on pollution, when that consists in using market rules to change people's behaviour. I find that to be inconsistent with their philosophical framework. In fact, my colleague is saying that if the rest of the world does not take the initiative, we should not do anything. The United States, and specifically the states of California and New England, already participate in the carbon exchange with Quebec. We are already competitive. Why does the member not recognize that?

103 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/1/23 10:44:01 a.m.
Watch

It seems that there is someone else who wants to reply but, unfortunately, they cannot, unless they decide to give a speech. I would also ask the member who gave the speech to reply at the appropriate time instead of answering while someone is asking him a question.

48 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Jun/1/23 10:44:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I simply want to say to my colleague that he spoke about certain states in the U.S. participating in the exchange, but not all states do. Our economy is essentially based on collaborating with the United States, not just some of the states. That is a big difference. Need I remind members that after eight years of Liberal governance and the application of the Liberal carbon tax, Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries? In the midst of the worst inflation crisis in 40 years, the Liberals want to impose $436 in additional taxes on Quebec families. I am against that.

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 10:45:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. As our allies worldwide are moving forward with measures to make their economies greener and cleaner, it is really unfortunate to see that some of our hon. colleagues still do not understand the benefits of our approach. They like saying that our pollution pricing system is making people poorer, chumming the water with hyperinflated misinformation based on the worst-case scenarios of a future where we do nothing to combat climate change. The truth is, in fact, that today, right now, pollution pricing is putting more money back in the pockets of Canadian households. In 2022-23, through the climate action incentive payments, an average family of four received $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, those living in rural and small communities received an extra 10%. Clearly, it appears that my colleagues from the official opposition would prefer that we just wait and take no action to address climate change. They would prefer that Canadian households just keep riding the roller coaster of international oil prices, while the cost to our environment, our health and our communities from climate change just keeps adding up. This is by no means a viable option for our country. At the end of March, our government released budget 2023, our made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future. It comes at an important moment for our country. I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He is a proud Quebecker, who I am sure will share his important perspective. To go back to my remarks, I will begin by speaking about the state of the Canadian economy today. Last year, Canada delivered the strongest economic growth in the G7, and our economic growth was stronger than expected in the first quarter of this year; I think it was 3% or 4%. There are 900,000 more Canadians working today than there were when COVID first hit. Our unemployment rate is just 5%, and it has remained near a record low for five months in a row. We have recovered 129% of the jobs lost to COVID, compared with just 115% in the United States. Inflation was 4.4% in April, down from a peak of 8.1% last June, and the Bank of Canada predicts that inflation will drop to just 2.5% by the end of this year. Even with a slowing economy driven by elevated interest rates in Canada and around the world, our deficit is projected to be lower than it was last year, down to just 1.4% of the GDP. Our deficit and our net-to-GDP ratio are the lowest in the G7 and lower than those of other large AAA-rated economies, such as Australia and the Netherlands. This strong economic foundation underpinned the budget our government released in March. Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, is currently at committee stage. It would implement many of the key measures outlined in our budget, including new targeted investments to make life more affordable for Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, in Canada, inflation has come down significantly from its peak of 8.1% in June. However, we all know that it is still too high, and it is still making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet and put food on the table. Groceries are more expensive today, and for many people, higher prices on other essential goods are causing undue stress. That is why budget 2023 announced new targeted inflation relief to help support the most vulnerable Canadians with the cost of living. This includes the introduction of a one-time grocery rebate, providing $2.5 billion in targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadian families. I am pleased to say that, with royal assent to Bill C-46, the grocery rebate will be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5, 2023, by direct deposit or cheque through the Canada Revenue Agency. This means that eligible couples with two children will receive an extra $467, single Canadians without children up to an extra $234 and seniors an extra $225 on average. However, the Conservatives voted against every one of these measures. This is much-needed inflation relief that will be in the pockets of Canadians in just over a month. This is just one of example of a suite of measures announced in budget 2023 to help make life more affordable. As another example, to support hard-working small business owners, budget 2023 outlined the government's efforts to work closely with small businesses and the payment card industry to lower these fees. Another important measure in the budget includes working with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce junk fees for Canadians. The budget also takes action to crack down on predatory lending. Predatory lenders can take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by extending very high interest rates. With budget 2023, our government is taking action by proposing to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of an annual percentage rate of 47% to 35% and imposing a cap on payday loans. Budget 2023 announced that the federal government will increase the number of Canadians eligible for File my Return to two million people by 2025, almost triple the current number. Budget 2023 also announced that, starting next year, the CRA will pilot a new automatic filing system. This will help vulnerable Canadians who do not currently file their taxes to receive the benefits to which they are rightly entitled. The government knows that the higher cost of living means that students still need support to afford an education and pursue their dreams. Budget 2023 also proposed enhanced support for students for the 2023 school year. This included increasing Canada student grants by 40%, providing up to $4,200 for full-time students, raising the interest-free Canada student loan limit from $210 to $300 per week of study, and waiving the requirement for mature students aged 22 years or older to undergo credit screening in order to qualify for federal student grants and loans for the first time. The members opposite like to make up big-cost numbers for the year 2030 and pull them forward as though they are happening right now, all the while ignoring the real damage that climate change is inflicting in our communities, whether it is through fires, floods, coastal erosion or storm damage. Meanwhile, we are helping people in the here and now in budget 2023, with measures that build on significant investments our government has made since 2015 to support Canadians and make life more affordable. These measures include reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, to deliver regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026; increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and older by 10%; supporting about 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit; enhancing the Canada workers benefit for our lowest-paid and often most essential workers to support up to 4.2 million Canadians annually; and permanently eliminating interest on Canada student loans. In conclusion, making life more affordable for Canadians has been a priority for our government since 2015, and it remains a priority. As I have outlined, budget 2023 builds on key investments from our government throughout the years, as we continue to make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger economic future for all Canadians. As with previous inflation relief, this new support has been carefully designed to have the biggest impact on those that need it most and, at the same time, to avoid exacerbating inflation.

1323 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/1/23 10:54:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate it every time my colleague gets up to speak in the House of Commons. However, in 2018, an economist from Yale named William Nordhaus came out with his concept of a carbon tax. At that point in time, his concept was for $44 per tonne, far from the $170 per tonne that Canada is moving towards here very quickly. He also said that it had to be efficient, because it is the only mechanism to apply across the economy to make things balanced. With the current government, it has a carbon tax. Now it has a clean fuel standard and clean electricity regulations. There are all kinds of other taxes it is putting on top of this, and the oil industry in Canada is the only industry that pays royalties to the federal government and the provincial governments, mostly. This is a problem. There are significant regulations and additional taxes being layered on that are far in excess of what any academic, economist or financial person has ever seen. Can my colleague square this with me in terms of how he sees a carbon tax actually working?

191 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Jun/1/23 10:55:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the environment committee. We have a good spirit of collaboration there. I would just start by saying that the party opposite campaigned on a clean fuel regulation and a price on pollution. We used to agree. The carbon price is not the only thing we are doing, as the hon. member mentioned. There are things on the incentive side of the question. We are working with the oil and gas sector. We are putting forward investment tax credits to support carbon capture, to support hydrogen and, importantly, to support the province of Alberta, where that important sector is located.

109 words

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

Jun/1/23 10:56:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. He said that, in the last budget, the government invested a lot of money in carbon capture, which is an extremely controversial technology. It is of absolutely no use in the fight against climate change. That carbon does not go away; it just gets buried in the ground. In the latest budget, the government is giving billions of dollars in tax credits to oil companies, which, I would remind the House, netted over $200 billion in 2022. Two weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Housing a question in committee of the whole. I am going to ask him that question again. Could that money—those tax credits and the billions of dollars the government is still giving oil companies—have been used to help with housing, seniors and health care? There are huge mental health issues across the country. Does my colleague think that money could have been used for better things than a technology that actually does absolutely nothing?

170 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Jun/1/23 10:57:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we need to do both. The energy transition includes carbon capture, an important technology that is going to allow us to take advantage of our energy resources without the pollution. We need to help with the energy transition, and we need to invest in housing. We have a $170 billion national housing strategy. I was very fortunate to be involved in the early stages. On the housing front, it is a collective effort by the federal government, provinces and territories. We are on it. The hon. member raises a very good point.

94 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/1/23 10:58:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the points that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made in his report, when it comes to the clean fuel regulations, is that it is a policy that is regressive for Canadian households. Lower-income households pay a greater proportion of their income to meet the requirements of this policy. Affordability, of course, is a concern for everyone in this House. Why did the government choose not to put affordability measures in place in relation, specifically, to the clean-fuel regulation?

83 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Jun/1/23 10:58:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the environment committee. The clean-fuel regulation is just one tool in our tool box. The price on pollution, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed out, gives back more to eight out of 10 families. It is progressive. That is right in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. We have a plethora of initiatives that have been supported by my hon. colleague and his party. These include the OAS increase, the Canada child benefit, the middle-class tax relief, and the dental and rental supports. Again, we are both fighting pollution and supporting affordability.

106 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 10:59:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about fuel, gasoline and the like, today, I would like to ask you a question. It is a rhetorical question; I am not expecting an answer. Do you have a car? I am sure you do. I am sure you drive on two-lane highways and three-lane highways. If you are like me, you see, every now and then, a car that moves from one lane to the next and then back again, sometimes without even signalling. That is frustrating and it is dangerous. I will come back to that car later. The official opposition has a gift for holding two contradictory positions at the same time. It is a clever balancing act, and, in some ways, I am impressed. I find it disturbing in a way, but it is clever in its own way. The official opposition can argue both sides at once. It is as though it wants to have its cake and eat it too. I will give an example. We hear, every day, that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. In other words, it is caused by a record expansion of the money supply during the pandemic. The next day, the official opposition says inflation is cost-driven, principally by the price on carbon, not by any other factor impacting costs, like supply chain bottlenecks and so forth. I will give a second example. The official opposition gets up and says that the horrible drug problem we have in this country is because of the low price of street drugs, which has created high demand. However, when we talk about the high price of gasoline, somehow that does not curtail demand. In other words, it seems like, according to the opposition, only those with addictions respond to the price mechanism. There are contradictions everywhere. I will give a third example. The official opposition has been for the price on carbon, and then it has been against the price on carbon. I would suggest that every Conservative MP in the House owes their constituents an explanation as to why they ran on a platform to impose a price on carbon yet abandoned that platform commitment very shortly afterward. They call the price on carbon a tax, but we are in an alternate reality here. The price on carbon is simply a transfer. They then call the clean fuel standard a second tax, but when it comes to the clean fuel standard, the government is not imposing any kind of charge. The clean fuel standard is not a tax; it is a regulation. This brings me to the fourth example of Conservative contradiction. For years, the Conservatives have been saying no to a price on carbon. That was before the 2021 election platform. Before that, they traditionally favoured regulation, as if regulations do not have a cost. They would say that they are not for a price on carbon, and that they prefer regulation, because, they say, there is no cost to regulation. It is very simple. It is like a magic wand. They will combat climate change through the magic wand of regulation, which, according to the Conservatives, costs nothing. The clean fuel standard is a regulation. No money goes to the government. It will result in the transfer of credits between companies, but only if a company does not meet its intensity target. It is not even clear how many credits a company or an enterprise would have to purchase, and since we do not know how many credits a company would have to purchase in 2030, we do not know what the cost impact of the purchase of those credits will be. The clean fuel standard is something Conservatives should approve of and support, because it will drive innovation. We know that Conservatives like that, because, as the solution to climate change, they always invoke the magic word “technology”, which again they imply is something free. Technological advancement and innovation are often the result of government regulation and involve costs for research and development in order to arrive at new, more efficient technologies. The next thing they will be telling us, and this will be another contradiction in their discourse, is that the methane regulations the government brought into force, which are meant to stop fugitive and controlled methane emissions, are a tax, which they are not. We are in Alice in Wonderland; it is all sleight of hand. Then there is the Conservatives' fake math. They are pulling numbers out of thin air and omitting to tie them to specific dates. Do members remember “Triple, Triple, Triple” on the Conservatives' hit parade? That ditty seems to have fallen from the number one spot recently. It made it seem like the price was going up in multiples overnight, but the price on carbon goes up only $15 per tonne annually, or 30% from 2022 to 2023, not 300%. I think the Conservatives got the decimal point wrong. It will go up in a declining percentage every year: 23% from 2023 to 2024, then 19% from 2024 to 2025. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which is no friend of the Liberal government, estimates that, after the 2023 increase on the price on carbon, the total impact of carbon pricing will amount to an extra 14¢ per litre, not “triple, triple, triple". There is another thing the opposition omits, and that is the rebate, which is what makes the price on carbon a transfer. Milton Friedman, who agreed with the price on carbon, did in fact include a rebate in his formula. We know that the leader of the official opposition is a disciple of Milton Friedman. I think Milton Friedman would be very upset, if he were alive today, to know that the leader of the official opposition here in Canada is against a market mechanism like the price on carbon. Once the clean fuel standard regulations take full effect, according to figures the PBO obtained from Environment and Climate Change Canada, they will increase the price of gas and diesel by as much as 17¢ per litre, but that is in 2030. Conservatives never mention the date when they get up and say, “triple, triple, triple". They forget there is a calendar date that is far off into the future. There is another point I would like to make about the PBO study, which would be apparent to anyone who has studied economics. I do not know how many people on that side have studied economics, but I am sure many other people in the House have. The PBO's analysis is based on what is called “static” economics. It does an analysis based on the idea that everything else stays the same, so it does not take into account innovation, or the fact that companies innovate to meet the intensity target and will not have to buy credits, and so on. It is not real-time economics, and I would say the official opposition needs to get with real time. I will come back to the big, blue car on the highway. Conservatives are for a price on carbon, then are against it. Conservatives are for regulations that drive innovation, then are against them. That big, blue gas guzzler that zigzags incessantly across the highway needs to pick a lane.

1237 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 204