44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/1/24 10:36:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us go through this point by point. She says that natural disasters would be stopped by a carbon tax. The carbon tax has now been in place for five years, and, as she points out, these events continue to happen. Clearly the carbon tax is not solving the problem; in fact, it has not even reduced emissions. The government has missed its own targets in all but one year, and that was when we were locked down for COVID. Its own environment commissioner says the government will not hit its targets by 2030.
Second, she just revealed what she wants to spend money on: a national round table of a bunch of activists, lobbyists and bureaucrats in Ottawa. She refers to a food program she claims I want to cut; there is no food program. What the government has is a program to bring a bunch of bureaucrats and activists to Ottawa to talk about food. This is exactly the kind of waste and mismanagement we will get rid of so we can bring home affordable food.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:03:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to rise today to explain the many reasons why the Green Party will be voting against today's opposition motion, but I would like to ask my friend from Kingston and the Islands to comment on this. We had an earlier exchange about whether enforcing the carbon tax or raising the carbon tax could stop fires and floods. The answer from science is clear that it cannot.
We cannot turn back what has happened to the atmosphere with respect to atmospheric chemistry and physics, but we can avoid runaway global warming, the kind that self-accelerates and becomes unstoppable. We must not stoke the furnace further on future warming to destroy the lives of our children, which is why we need carbon pricing, and we need more to reduce emissions much more quickly.
Does my my hon. colleague have any comments on that?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:05:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in December, the Atlantic caucus of the Liberal Party came together with the Prime Minister to make an announcement on heat pumps. It just so happened that the announcement was taking place at the same time as the carbon price was about to go up. For all the rhetoric we are hearing from the member from Kingston today, when push came to shove, when the government was faced with a price increase that people in Atlantic Canada could not afford to stomach, it backed down.
Does the member think it is okay for Canadians to pay more in carbon taxes than heating like natural gas, which is very commonly found on bills in Canada today?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:09:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to point out that I believe there is an error in the wording of the motion. The motion calls on the Liberal government to cancel the April 1, 2024, carbon tax increase.
However, there is no carbon tax. It is actually a price on pollution. I believe that both the House and Canadians are being misled on this issue.
Why is it not a tax? For it to be a tax, the government would have to put the money into its coffers with a view to spending it on programs or investing it in the future of Canadians.
That is not what the price on pollution does. With the price on pollution, the government is only an intermediary, because the proceeds are returned to Canadians. It is a price mechanism, something that the Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman endorsed as an economic measure for fighting pollution.
How does this mechanism work in terms of carbon pricing? It is very interesting. It involves a little bit of magic. When a consumer goes to spend money and sees that the price is perhaps a little higher, they are not thinking about the quarterly deposit they will receive from the Government of Canada in their chequing account as compensation. They just look at the price and decide that, since it is a bit more expensive, they will consume a little less. That saves them money in the short term, and then, on January 1, April 1 and so forth, they realize that money has been deposited in their bank account.
They will feel doubly lucky, because they saved money at the pump and also got money from the government. That is how carbon pricing works, and it is the key to its effectiveness as a measure for fighting pollution, especially greenhouse gas emissions.
What is very frustrating about this debate, in addition to the fact that it is the same debate over and over again based on a very symbolic and superficial understanding of what the price on pollution is, are these flimsy conclusions that the official opposition wishes to draw about the impact of the price on pollution on inflation and, more specifically, on food prices. However, rigorous academic study after rigorous academic study has pointed to the fact that the impact of the price on pollution on food prices is extremely small.
Now, we know that the official opposition has no respect for the Bank of Canada and that it would like to take the Bank of Canada under its wing and dictate monetary policy, but it is an incredibly credible institution filled with some of the best economists in this country. What does the Bank of Canada say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and inflation? It says that the price on carbon contributes about 0.15 % to inflation overall.
The University of Calgary, is not, I might add for anyone who does not follow schools of thought and academic life in this country, what I would call a hotbed of socialism. What did the University of Calgary say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and food inflation? University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe estimates that the price on carbon I will call it, because I do not want to mislead people as it is not a tax, is responsible for less than 1% of grocery price increases. How did Professor Tombe come to that conclusion? Did he just pull a number out of the air the way the official opposition likes to do? No. He used a Statistics Canada modelling program. Again, we have some of the country's greatest econometric experts working at Statistics Canada, like we do at the Bank of Canada. I do not know if the official opposition members are calling into question the integrity and expertise of Statistics Canada, maybe they are, but I would say that the Statistics Canada modelling program is a credible instrument and that is what Professor Tombe was using.
He goes on to say that in Alberta, because this is very much focused in many ways on Alberta and the oil industry, the price on carbon has increased prices by about 0.3%, which is 30¢ on a $100 bill, in Manitoba it is 0.9% and in Ontario it is 0.4%. These are credible, rigorous academic studies. However, we do not get any of that from the official opposition; rather, we get this kind of false logic, like the shin bone is attached to the knee bone and the knee bone is attached to the thigh bone, etc. It starts with the idea that there is a price on carbon, which means it is going to cost more to drive a truck, or this and that, and eventually it is going to show up on the shelves. The fact of the matter is that is not real logic founded on a rigorous analysis.
The other point I would like to make is that the price of food has gone up. However, according to credible news media like CTV News, and an article posted on its website, there are a number of factors that are contributing to the high price of food.
The first is climate change. Devastating wildfires continue to rage across Canada, destroying forests and farmland. Let us use a bit of simplistic logic that maybe the official opposition can understand. If farmland is destroyed, what happens to the supply of food? It goes down. The Leader of the Opposition thinks of himself as a wonderful and great economist, but what happens when the supply of food goes down and the demand stays the same? What happens to the price? It goes up. That is the number one cause of rising food prices. It is basic logic.
The really interesting thing is that greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector are not regulated. There is no price on carbon on greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector. As a matter of fact, a lot of people have been writing to me saying that we have to price greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural lands, but we have not done that.
What is another aspect that is causing challenges to the supply of food? Can members guess what Ukraine has been called? It has been called the breadbasket of Europe. I think it is going through some tough times, which may be limiting the supply of wheat from that part of the world. Again, if we constrain supply in the face of a demand that is stable or even increasing, we get higher prices.
I do not know why the leader of the official opposition does not click into that. It is basic economics 101. Therefore, we have to look at these other causes. The price on carbon is not the cause of all the woes around the world and we have to stop saying that.
What the members of the official opposition like to do, over and again, through these opposition day motions is build straw men, which they then demolish on social media while pretending to be heroes. That is all this is about. It is all about social media hits.
1212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:21:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is funny that we are talking about the carbon tax today, because just this morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released the costing of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage.
How much will this measure cost over the next five years? It will cost approximately $5.5 billion.
I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me that it would be a far better idea to invest this money in true green energy than to try to convince us that oil can be environmentally friendly.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:35:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about wanting to solve the environmental issues, but only from lens of what suits Quebec. It does not suit other places, such as Alberta, where the temperature was -50°C a few weeks ago. The carbon tax is not working. Emissions are not being reduced, and Canadians are paying more than they receive.
If the system is not working, does the member believe that we should continue with it, or should we halt it to move to another way of dealing with the environment?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:36:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful. I have repeatedly talked about the impact on the Canadian economy. It goes without saying that climate change is a global and therefore international issue, and that can pose a problem when one country's decisions impact all the others. That goes without saying.
I spent a lot of my speech explaining that the system does not work. The problem I have with this carbon tax is that it is a small measure with little or no impact. If there is an impact, it is not particularly negative. There is not much to it. In fact, the crux of the problem is the billions of dollars in funding that go to the oil and gas companies, which are raking in the profits. That is the problem. There are no real programs or real plans for energy transition. That is the crux of the problem.
The system does not work. Of course, for some it works very well. It is a system that favours only the wealthiest, an elite group. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not challenge that.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:49:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member when he said that Canadians as a whole are smarter than what the Conservatives are giving them credit for. In fact, what we are seeing is a great con job by the Conservative Party on the issue of its so-called “first priority”, that being getting rid of the carbon tax.
The type of misinformation that is out there is quite significant. One of them is tying the price on carbon to inflation. Interestingly enough, when the issue was brought up with the Bank of Canada, Governor Macklem indicated, when referring to the carbon tax, that the “contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” That is incredible.
If we listen to the Conservatives' spin, one would think that it is the driving force of inflation in Canada. I wonder if the member would attempt to dispel that particular untruth that is being spread by the Conservative Party of Canada.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:50:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is obsessed with the carbon tax. I would not dare to speculate on how many times a day he thinks about it. He even blames the carbon tax for inflation.
Now, it is true that studies have been done. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada have concluded that the carbon tax had very little effect.
There are other factors in Quebec that are driving up prices, such as the housing crisis. During question period yesterday, the Liberals were bragging about having paid Quebec so much money, saying that they had matched Quebec's investment. We had to fight for the money that Ottawa owed Quebec. No housing has been built for years. Negotiations dragged on. When it comes to housing, the Liberals refuse to give Quebec City any money. They would rather squabble and see the Liberal logo in front of construction sites. It has an impact.
I realize that the parliamentary secretary wants us to turn on the Conservatives and criticize them. Sooner or later, the Liberals will have to admit that they, too, have made mistakes and that they, too, often underestimate Quebeckers' intelligence by saying that they are building housing.
As far as immigration targets are concerned, Quebec wants to be consulted. The Minister of Immigration is literally telling us that Ottawa is not an ATM, as though Quebeckers are no more than freeloaders who are not paying their fair share into the federal treasury. The parliamentary secretary can criticize the Conservatives if he wants to, but I think that the Liberal government has lot to account for too. I think he should reflect carefully on that.
278 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:52:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to ask another question in French.
Quebeckers are fortunate to be able to rely on an electrical grid powered primarily by hydroelectricity. Can my colleague explain his vision of a more equitable carbon pricing system for Canadians across the country?
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:53:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to seem like I am sidestepping the question, but that is none of our concern. The federal carbon tax is none of our concern. The taxation of carbon in the other provinces is none of our concern. It does not apply in Quebec.
Quebec decided to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030. It came up with the means and found partners to achieve its goal. Some Canadian provinces were initially involved, but they left this system. They did not want to participate, and now they are stuck with the federal government meddling in their own affairs.
In Quebec, we are proud of this system because we do not have to deal with these issues. We have a system that reflects who we are, that is based on the quantity of emissions instead of on the price. It is consistent with the way we produce our electricity and how we heat our buildings. I will let the nine other provinces deal with their own problems.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:02:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the misinformation is incredibly concerning. The Conservatives have come to British Columbia, my home province, with a campaign to axe the tax. The federal carbon tax does not apply in British Columbia. British Columbia has its own carbon tax that was put in by a small-c conservative premier years ago, yet this Conservative caucus and its leader seem shameless in promoting this kind of misinformation.
Canadians also do not realize that the current carbon pricing system that the government has put in place really allows big corporations to pay a small fraction of the carbon price. Suncor pays 1/14th of what Canadians pay. This is appalling. We need to fix the loopholes in the output-based pricing system that let big corporations off the hook.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:33:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree that the government's policies are ridiculous.
I think it is important to highlight that the carbon tax is not the only thing driving inflation in this country. I agree. There are a whole host of terrible Liberal government policies that are driving up the cost of living. The fact is that we have foreign investment fleeing this country, a number of businesses are closing in this country, and the number of businesses starting in this country is lowering.
The holistic view of the government is what we should be looking at. It is not just the carbon tax—
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:34:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to clarify a few things for the member.
First, they keep talking about the carbon tax, so apparently we have not said this enough, but there is no carbon tax in Quebec.
Second, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, fuel charge proceeds go to households and provincial governments in return for increased program spending. They have zero impact on balancing the budget.
Third, the Conservatives talk about the carbon tax and only the carbon tax. We are not getting anywhere. We are constantly going backward. This is 2024. They do not have an environmental vision or a transition plan. We are talking about forest fires and floods. My region has had both. They want to abolish abortion rights. They do not talk about economic realities. None—
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:35:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, there is a carbon tax in Quebec, called the clean fuel regulations, and it is adding extra costs to Quebeckers and people right across this country.
I mentioned during my speech how the other parties love to divide and distract, but I can tell members that, when I and many of my colleagues are back in our ridings talking to our constituents, they are talking about the fact that they cannot afford food for their children, that their mortgages have doubled or that they are being evicted because of the policies and inflationary spending of the government. They are mad, and rightfully so.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:37:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a true honour to rise in the House of Commons and speak on behalf of the folks of Peterborough—Kawartha.
Today, it is a real honour, because we get to present our opposition motion, a common-sense opposition motion that would make life more affordable for Canadians, and I will read it into the record for folks at home. It reads:
That, given that the carbon tax has proven to be a tax plan, not an environmental plan, the House call on the Liberal government to cancel the April 1, 2024, carbon tax increase.
Just so folks at home know, that planned tax increase on April 1 by the Liberal Prime Minister is 23%. Now, I do not know who they are speaking with, but I do not know anyone right now who can afford that, and that is the reality of it. People are really struggling after eight years of this Prime Minister, and it is a sad reality.
How does the carbon tax contribute to the cost of living? I will share the story of Jen Wight, this amazing, charismatic woman who may not be so young but looks young. She has freckles, and she is just this dynamic woman who is talented.
Eight years ago, Jen started her business, Emily Mae's Cookies & Sweets. Her grandma gave her her recipes, and she is so talented and community-minded. In fact, for those who are watching, they should follow this woman on all social media. They will love it and not regret it. If there is a television producer watching, please pick this woman up and give her a show.
I saw Jen just before Christmas, and she looked more desperate than I had ever seen her look in my life. She is a not a dramatic person by any means, but she said, “Michelle, the carbon tax is crippling me,” and she kept talking about butter. Members can imagine how critical butter is to someone running a bakery and making cookies. She would buy upwards of 40 pounds of butter a week. She said, “Michelle, when I started my business eight years ago, butter was $2.49. Today, you can expect to pay upwards of $10 for a pound of butter.” In most communities, it is about $7.49; $10 is on the extreme end, but today it is about $7.49, which is a 200% increase.
Shortly after the new year, I was scrolling through social media, and Jen had made a post on Emily Mae's Cookies. She said, “This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life. I have to close down my business.” I asked her if I could come and talk to her. She is just so polite, and it is hard for her to get political. People do not want to get political. They like to be congenial and get along with people, but the reality is that every single thing comes back to politics; everything comes back to policy.
Today, in the House, I heard a Liberal member say that the carbon tax is so minuscule that it does not matter. From $2.49 to $7.49 for butter is just a couple of bucks. However, it is cents that add up to dollars. Butter was the demise of this woman's heart and soul, and it is so simple. It is a household item that everyone should be able to afford. That is the reality of the carbon tax, and I challenge that Liberal member who thinks it is so minuscule and does not understand it to go and speak with Jen and to go to the farmer who has to pay the extra carbon tax to heat his farm, pay the extra carbon tax to feed the cows the grain and pay the extra carbon tax to ship the milk to the trucker. The trucker then is going to ship the milk to the factory where they make the butter, where they will have to pay extra carbon tax to heat the building to make the butter, and then to the trucker who has to ship it from the factory that makes the butter to the grocery store. It is really common sense that this is going to be catastrophic for people.
Jade phoned me this week, and she said, “Michelle, I'm a single mom with two kids. I've worked really, really hard. I make $62,500 a year, and for the first time in my life, bill collectors are calling me.”
Politically, I do not even understand how the Liberals and NDP can stand here today and say they want to increase the carbon tax. Nobody wants that, not the premiers of this country and not constituents. It is actually political suicide as well. It makes no sense.
I want to read these into the record. I asked folks to send me their heating bills.
Michelle, I am just sending a snapshot of our Enbridge bill that contains the carbon tax. This is for a family of three in a brick bungalow approximately 1,000 square feet, heated by natural gas.
The gas supply charge is $38.96; the federal carbon charge, $39.15, and wait: There is a tax on the tax. They can expect to pay $20.38 in HST.
Hello, Michelle. I am a resident of Ennismore and a widow who is trying her best to make ends meet since my husband's passing. Yesterday I received my gas bill. I was shocked to see the total carbon tax applied to my bill. This is absolutely criminal!
The federal carbon charge is $104.33; the gas supply charge is $106.42, and the tax on the tax, let us not forget that, is $49.59.
Michelle, if the federal government wants to charge us the carbon tax, it should be on the gas used, not other fees like delivery or transportation. It's like charging someone the carbon tax on buying a coffee in the gas station on the same bill. I used $28 in gas [and] the carbon price is $28. Sounds like a 100% tax to me.
It should be removed. I'm for supporting the reduction of carbon but alternatives are too expensive to implement. We're all struggling to get by. And this isn't helping. Food or heat, right?
This one has the federal carbon charge, $94.91; gas supply charge, $101.27; and HST, $53.28.
Every member in this House should be asking their constituents to do the same thing. We were elected to create policy to help Canadians. This is genuinely hurting them. Full stop. There have been members of the opposite party, and good for them for having the courage to stand up. I am looking at one right now who says that this does not work. I thank him. He lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. He knows. He clearly listens to his constituents.
Not one emissions target has been met. What is wild is that there are commonalities between us in this House, and for them to sit and say that the Conservatives want the planet to burn, what? The ideology and the belief system in this place is so deep that I cannot even believe it.
The Conservatives have put forward a four-pronged approach in this session. We do have the solutions. The reality is that life was not this hard before this Prime Minister and it does not have to be this hard after him. It is going to be a lot of work to get out of this; I understand that. There are incredible people with incredible ideas that really truly innovate and are going to revolutionize our world, but carbon tax is not it. We need to axe the tax. We need to build more houses. We need to fix the budget. We need to stop crime.
The first piece of that, axing the tax, is the simplest and most common-sense thing to do. Everybody who is watching at home is so frustrated by this place. I want them to know that we are, too. They ask what we are doing. We are in opposition, and the NDP and the Liberals signed a coalition, which they call a supply agreement. They can call it whatever they want, tomayto-tomahto, but the reality is they are going to work together for a majority.
However, Conservatives know that the majority of people watching at home do not want this tax. We know that. We will not stop. We will continue to fight for this. I urge every member to do the right thing and vote for this motion to axe the tax.
1474 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think what the member opposite is talking about is listening, gathering data and, as a real leader would do, recognizing when something they are doing does not work. That is actually what we are asking the Liberals to do today. Instead of doubling down on something that they just believe is great, we are saying the data is in and the carbon tax is not helping anyone. It is not an environmental plan. There have been no targets met. A true leader listens, pivots and changes according to the needs of the people they are elected to serve. That is exactly what leadership is, and that is exactly not what the Liberals are doing.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 12:50:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the member read the motion. I would like to do the same. The motion reads as follows:
That, given that the carbon tax has proven to be a tax plan, not an environmental plan, the House call on the Liberal government to cancel the...carbon tax increase.
I would suggest to the member that the tax credits being offered to oil companies for carbon capture are also more of a tax measure than an environmental measure. I just want to know, in the interest of consistency, if the member is also proposing to abolish the tax credits for carbon capture.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think if people have any conversation with these dairy farmers, they will say, without a doubt, that this carbon tax is crippling them. That is across the board. Bill C-234 is about that. That is what I would push back on. I would—
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 1:04:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I found some aspects of my colleague's speech really interesting. She has done a great deal of research on this to justify the carbon tax, and I commend her for that. However, I would like to hear her thoughts on the following fact. In the last two federal budgets, the government introduced six tax credits that will total $83 billion by 2035. These tax credits are primarily intended for oil companies.
What does she think of that? Is that okay? Should that money not be invested somewhere else? She was talking about climate change. Should investments not target climate action?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
