44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/1/24 10:10:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the second petition actually had good news, because the government announced measures with respect to it towards the end of last year.
This petition specifically talks about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and says that we have been warned repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather, that addressing climate change requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and that, in 2021, the federal government committed to cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector to achieve net zero by 2050.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has.
Mr. Speaker, I have presented a lot of petitions in my day. I have never had the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman heckle me while doing that. I will just jump straight to the petition.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 10:37:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow up on our leader's speech about our opposition day motion today, which is calling on the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to support common sense.
After eight years of the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal coalition, Canadians by the millions are getting increasingly frustrated at the out-of-control tax increases under the Prime Minister. Let me give an example: $27,571.29 on an invoice from Rutters Elevators. I was speaking to Michael Aube in Chesterville yesterday and again this morning. That is the carbon tax bill, the line on the bill, for drying at their elevator for one farm in Chesterville, Ontario, last year.
Canadians believe that this is getting absurd. The worst is yet to come. On April 1, the carbon tax is going to increase by 23%, and the Prime Minister and the NDP, coalition partners together, are going to quadruple the carbon tax in the coming years. This means Canadians are dumbfounded at the fact that the Prime Minister, the finance minister and their government believe that putting a $100,000 carbon tax bill for one farm alone is not going to increase the cost of food and inflation in this country. Nobody believes it. Again, just this week, the finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister went out and said that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. It is no wonder we cannot balance the budget in this country under their watch. They cannot do basic math and economics to understand that.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed the impact the tax is going to have on farmers; $1 billion in carbon taxes is coming under the current plan and the continued carbon tax increases to farmers in the coming years. Nobody believes that one can add a billion dollars in taxes to the bills of Canadian farmers and not expect food prices, the cost of living and the cost of doing business in this country to go up. That does not even include the carbon tax on trucking.
In my family, I am proud of my father, Ed, now happily retired from JED Express in South Mountain, Ontario. We were in the trucking business for years. One cannot put 61¢ a litre on the price of gas in the transportation business and not have it drive up the cost of food and of everything that Canadians buy. Everything has to be shipped and trucked in this country, driving up the cost. Canadians are tired and have had enough of these tax increases.
We have our common-sense Conservative motion here today that builds on our four priorities: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is resonating because it is what Conservative members heard in every part of the country once again over the Christmas recess and holidays, out and about in our community.
Let us talk about being out of touch. I want people to picture this for a second if they can. We went home to our ridings, to Christmas open houses and to public events, and we were dropping by. I want people to picture a Liberal MP and just how out of touch they are. Apparently they went home and went to the local Tim Hortons coffee shop to grab a coffee and shoot the breeze with people in Avalon, rural Newfoundland. They came back to Ottawa and, after weeks of feedback, the Prime Minister had a great idea this week.
They said they heard the message about the carbon tax loud and clear: People do not like the name of it. The Liberals' idea, after going back and hearing from Canadians, apparently, was that it was not the fact that the carbon tax was going to quadruple. It was not the fact that it is driving up costs, and it was not the fact that we are adding a billion dollars in taxes to Canadian farmers in the coming years. It was the fact that maybe Canadians just do not like the name of the carbon tax. The Liberals are out of touch.
On this side of the aisle, the motion is clear. On April 1 the carbon tax is going to increase by 23% as part of the plan to quadruple it from its current rate. If Canadians think it is bad now, just wait until, year after year, it gets to the totals in their plans. They may not even be done after that.
There is no part of this country that is not impacted negatively by the failed carbon tax, and it has been a failure. Emissions are not going down; they are going up. The cost of living and the cost of doing business are skyrocketing at rates like we have never seen before.
I want to point out a couple of things in this country. Just this week, CTV News had an article headline that said, “40 per cent of N.S. households struggle to pay their electricity bill”. The Liberals still plan to quadruple the carbon tax and drive bills up even further.
The part of the country I would like to highlight today are the good people in northern Ontario, who, for years, have overwhelmingly elected Liberal and NDP MPs to go to Ottawa. They are now seeing week by week, month by month, and budget by budget, just how out of touch their Liberal and NDP MPs have been.
It was very interesting here, and I want to call out the hypocrisy particularly of the NDP members. They always talk a big, tough game. They yell and do all their things, whether it be at committee or in question period, and they always claim they have these great ideas. They vote and do all these things that make it look like they are fighting on behalf of folks, particularly in northern Ontario. At the end of the day, when the budget comes, the NDP are just as complicit as the Liberals in driving up the carbon tax.
On hypocrisy, I have to call out the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, an NDP MP who goes on record about the carbon tax and says, “I think it's a black eye for the Liberals for what they have done.” Excuse me to the NDP members, but they have voted with the Liberals every single time, and they are going to quadruple it. The only reason Canadians do not have a choice right now is that the NDP keeps propping the Liberals up time and time again.
I think what is important here is that the NDP members say one thing back in their ridings, but then they come to Ottawa and vote a completely different way. What we say is that rent is up, gas is up, the carbon tax is up, housing costs are up, and for the NDP, time is up. Canadians, particularly in northern Ontario, are not buying it anymore.
One of my favourite parts is the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay, who gets triggered. I am glad he is here this morning. I am glad that at the—
1211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 10:47:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, and that member in particular, want to talk a lot about the price on pollution but do not want to talk about the other things the government is doing, in particular for the agriculture sector.
There is one riding in Ontario that receives $6.8 million through the agriculture sector emissions reductions and clean-tech funding. This is money that is actually given to the agricultural sector to help it reduce its emissions and find clean technology.
Do members know whose riding receives $6.8 million a year from the federal government for that? It is that member's riding. That member's riding receives $6.8 million of federal money to help the agricultural industry move away from emissions and in the direction of clean tech.
I am wondering, in the interest of axing everything, whether the member would comment on whether the Conservative government would axe this clean-tech funding and this $6.8 million to his riding.
163 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 11:09:51 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 11:35:54 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 11:53:02 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 12:37:58 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 12:53:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
I am standing here to speak against this motion. It is a motion that is so based on ideology. It would do great harm to Canadians. A carbon tax is regarded by a majority of economists and policy researchers to be the most simple and powerful tool to limit carbon dioxide emissions. It is based on a premise that the polluter pays, which is the basis for most of our just systems, that people who do harm pay for that harm. It taxes polluters.
A price on pollution is not a new idea. Norway initiated a carbon tax in 1991, taxing 80% of all its fuel emissions. In fact, since then, its fuel consumption and greenhouse gases emissions have gone down by 25%. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries did this in 1997. In 1991, Sweden brought in a $177 Canadian per tonne carbon tax. That is six times what we pay now in Canada. Other countries like Denmark and Finland all initiated carbon taxes in 1991. Their greenhouse gas emissions have fallen considerably and their economies and jobs have improved and increased.
I do not want to just talk about other countries globally. I want to talk about our own backyard. I want to talk about my province of British Columbia and the fact the it initiated a carbon tax in 2007. Since then, greenhouse gas emissions have gone down by 15%, and it has not harmed the economy. In fact, the British Columbia economy is one of the most vibrant in all of Canada. After seven years of having a carbon tax, B.C.'s GDP increased by 12.4%.
During the 2008 recession, when the Conservatives were in government, B.C. outperformed the Canadian average, increasing its GDP by 12.4%. In fact, it is now one of the lowest GHG emitters in Canada. It is now thriving in its economy and moving upward.
It has created 123,000 new jobs in the green tech sector. Those jobs are paying an average of $90,000 per capita. That is pretty good money. It is attracting a lot of young people to British Columbia to work in green tech. At the moment, it has attracted 300 new companies from around the world to invest in British Columbia. Why? Because of the premise of a carbon tax, which is a federal premise that is revenue-neutral that goes back in rebates. The rebates and the revenue neutrality has given British Columbia the ability to lower taxes on some economies and industries; the ability to lower personal income taxes; and the ability to pass on money to low and middle-income Canadians, who get back more money than they pay in their fuel consumption tax.
What it is finding is that because of a low commercial and personal income taxes, 300 companies have invested in British Columbia.
British Columbia has also invested in green technology, which is what the federal government is doing as well, which has created new, well-paying jobs. Lower and middle-income people, farmers and businesses benefit from that low tax rate and from rebates. They help families, businesses and farmers.
I know that the World Bank and the United Nations have cited British Columbia as having the best tax in the world and is a model to follow. However, I know that party does not think well of the World Bank and would like to leave the United Nations. I hear that this is one of its plans. Therefore, I am going to cite somebody else whom the Conservatives might find more credible, which is the OECD. It says that the B.C. carbon tax is a “textbook” example of how to get it right.
Let us balance that with what the tax is doing, how it is helping people and what it has done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with what the Senate committee said in its report called “Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods”.
What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of climate change to us? Apparently, climate-change damage cost every Canadian $700 each year because of the money spent to remediate the problems we had with the fires and floods. In fact, we have had wildfires now for six years in British Columbia and two of those wildfires cost $720 million in insured losses last year, making it the most costly insured extreme-weather event the province has ever seen.
Over the past 50 years, the costs of storms, floods and wildfires in Canada have risen from tens of millions of dollars to billions of dollars annually. Who pays that? Who helps out? It is the federal government. Therefore, that is costing us money. It is billions of dollars. In fact, in 2019 and 2010, the insured losses for catastrophic events were over $18 billion. With respect to the health costs, in Ontario alone, the health costs were shown to be $770 million last year because of the fires in Ontario.
In British Columbia, when the floods occurred, the farmers, whom the Conservative Party says it cares about, lost millions and millions of dollars in farmland and in livestock, and the government had to help them. Both the B.C. and federal governments had to put money in to help these farmers out of their problems. A thousand farms in British Columbia were impacted in the floods last year, 15,000 hectares of land and $2.5 million in livestock in one flood.
The Province of B.C. is still trying to calculate the loss of tourism due to the fires. I am not hearing anything from the Conservatives about what they would do about the extreme costs that governments have to bear and all the problems we face when we do this.
Professor Tombe, an economist and public policy professor at the University of Calgary, said that if we were to axe the tax, as we have been hearing repeatedly from those people, it would benefit the highest-income bracket in Canada and be hardest on a “large fraction of low- and middle-income” families, and businesses.
I want to end by quoting Mark Twain. He said, “Never let the [facts stand] in the way of a good story” or, in this case, a good bumper sticker. Let us talk about facts, and I brought facts to the table. Let us do away with the ideology, really do the math and clearly see that B.C. is the best example in the world as to what a carbon tax can do.
1124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 1:07:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think the Liberals are doing that anymore. They have moved to stop helping oil and gas companies. When I talked about British Columbia, one of the things that happened was that fuel usage went down by 16%, so it is not using as much fuel. We are investing in electric cars. Across the country, there is a whole highway that allows for the use of electric cars. We are putting money into the electric car industry and we are bringing down all the causes of pollution at the same time.
It is not a one-shot deal. We cannot just poke at one thing. There are multiple factors that go into changing greenhouse emissions. It is something that this government is addressing. It is something that the British Columbian government addressed.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 1:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member is simple and straightforward. All indications tell us that the carbon tax is not working, and it is not reducing emissions. That is a very fundamental reason to scrap the tax and axe it.
Does he believe the carbon tax is working?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 1:18:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is really nice to see the hon. member for Edmonton Manning. He is a gentleman, and I consider him a dear friend in this House.
I will say this: When we put forward a full plan to fight climate change, whether it is with innovation or putting a price on carbon, the parts are all interlinked. They all work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are leading the way with strong economic policies and internalizing the cost of an externality, according to Coase's theorem, if I go back to my graduate days in economics at university. That is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what we will continue to do.
It is always great to see the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, which is such a pleasure. British Columbia will always have a dear spot in my heart because I lived there myself.
On behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame who have entrusted me to come here and bring their thoughts to this place, I stand today to beg the Liberal-NDP coalition to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1.
After eight long years of the Liberal government, people of Newfoundland and Labrador are tired. They say it is has gone past its expiry date. People are hurting; they have had enough, yet the Prime Minister jets off to the Caribbean and has an $89,000 vacation passed on to him for free by one of his rich friends. However, that is not the sad part. While he is taxing Canadians with the carbon tax to slow us down on our burning of fossil fuels, in one week he puts 100 tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere, while the average Canadian puts out just 15 tonnes of emissions per year.
People are hurting. The inflationary carbon tax hits the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food, the grocers who sell the food and the consumers who simply drive to the grocery store to buy the food. This is why the Conservative Party put forward Bill C-234, which would take the tax off farmers who grow the food.
We have heard some rhetoric from the NDP-Liberal coalition. My hon. colleague for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, with his famous words last year, said he was sick and tired of people's talking about a cold winter and what they are doing. Then there is my colleague, the member for Avalon, who sometimes does not know whether he is coming or going when it comes to the carbon tax. We will see, I guess, where he stands on Monday. We hope that he does not just turn into a quicker flipper-flopper-upper and that he hangs in there and supports his constituents. I know where I stand; I stand with the people.
Last week, the CBC interviewed me and wanted some comments about the statement from my colleague, the member for Avalon, about the desire for a leadership review. I told them that I understood the member's frustration after seeing his leader being involved in the Aga Khan scandal, SNC Lavalin and the WE scandal. After all, his leader is the son of the guy who brought home the Constitution. It is unbelievable to see the Prime Minister continuously working against the Constitution, which his dad was so proud of. For example, there was the unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act, the single-use plastics ban, the oil and gas emissions cap, the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the environmental impact assessment bill. Now we are being face with Bill C-49 in committee, which references, 73 times, the unconstitutional Bill C-69.
The Liberals want to stop the production of oil off Newfoundland and Labrador, and in fact in all of Canada. They want to tax us and surrender the production of our clean, environmentally soundly produced oil with good labour standards and turn that production over to dictators with bad human rights records who produce dirty oil, under no environmental regulations for the most part.
If the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do something about cutting world emissions, it would be turning its attention to coal. In 2023, coal usage in the world set a record. Next year, it is going to go to new record heights.
Meanwhile, Canadians are being punished with a carbon tax. Coal produces 40% of the world's emissions. Natural gas produces half of the emissions coal does. The Chancellor of Germany came last year, begging us to supply Germany with liquefied natural gas to get it off dictator Putin's natural gas and to support the people of Ukraine. The Prime Minister said there was no business case for producing liquefied natural gas on Canada's east coast. Newfoundland and Labrador is the closest point to Europe in North America. We have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas sitting there, being reinjected, which we could bring ashore—
732 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 1:29:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what is Germany doing right now? It is building three new ports to take liquefied natural gas, predominantly from the U.S., which last year exported 90 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas.
Newfoundland and Labrador is half the distance to Europe as the Gulf of Mexico is. Is that not something? Another country, Argentina, is right now building a $10-billion LNG production facility. There is nowhere in the world farther from Europe than Argentina is. Maybe the South Pole is.
People might ask what the big deal is. Why can we not produce more liquefied natural gas, and use technology, not taxes, to get the world's emissions down? We do not understand it. It is mind boggling for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and for all those across this great country of Canada who understand the dilemma the world is facing. However, we have a big part of the solution right here in Canada. We can export to China and to Japan from British Columbia, which is the closest point in North America to Asia.
The big question is how, on Monday, the member for Labrador, the member for Long Range Mountains, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and the member for St. John's East will vote. I think I know how the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl will vote.
About the member for Avalon, I am not so sure. I see him over there contemplating, and I think he is going to vote with us. He is a great fellow; all in all, I really have a soft spot in my heart for him, but we are taking bets on the member for Avalon. In the last two votes, one time he voted for axing the tax and the next time he voted against it. What will it be this time? I do not know. It is 50/50, and two out of three is not bad. I know he is listening. Two Out of Three Ain't Bad is a famous song by Meat Loaf. We will see how he goes.
I will tell the House one thing for sure: I am going to vote to stop the tax increase on April 1. There is another thing that is certain: When Conservatives are elected, we will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us bring it home.
422 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 1:35:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my speech I laid out pretty clearly that coal usage last year was at an all-time high. It is going to be at another high next year. A new record is going to be set in 2024 and in 2025. Therefore, while the people of la belle province are being hammered by carbon tax 2, emissions continue to skyrocket.
We want to produce natural gas and supply it to China, India and Germany, which brought back online new coal plants last year, to bring down coal emissions.
We need technology, not taxes. Let us bring it home.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, right now every generation is giving up the dream, the dream of owning a home, the dream of warm holidays, the dream of a secure retirement, the dream of not living paycheque to paycheque and the dream of being able to afford heat and groceries for their family.
The actions of the Liberal-NDP coalition with this carbon tax has caused significant harm to Canadian farmers and consumers alike. The government has been making every effort to prevent farmers from receiving a carbon tax exemption for drying grain, barn heating and other farm operations, as well as hard-working Canadians from heating their homes. A carbon tax on all forms of home heating has already been voted down by the Liberal-Bloc coalition, and the Liberals and NDP still plan to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers. This increase of 23% will only lead to a further increase in the cost of food for Canadians.
It is clear that taxing the farmers who grow the food, as well as the truckers who transport it, will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers. The Liberal-NDP coalition's actions have completely left Canadians out in the cold. It is critical that steps are taken to support our farmers and ensure affordable food and heat for all Canadians.
I am not sure if the government fully understands the financial pinch that the majority of our country is in right now. Any of my constituents who can fly around on a private jet know what it costs when they see the bill. When was the last time our Prime Minister saw, read or paid a bill for private flights? I believe he is too far removed to keep this country going and feel the financial pressure that even a small percentage increase in grocery prices can bear.
Furthermore, Liberal-appointed senators voted significantly to change Bill C-234, which aims to provide relief to farmers from this carbon tax. This will only make the situation worse for farmers who are already struggling to keep up with the rising costs of production. These appointed senators gutted the bill before sending it back to the House of Commons, which means that it will have to go through further amendments before it can be passed into law. More red tape, more stopgaps, while the government fails to come up with solutions that do not just benefit themselves. We need to take action and ensure we can provide much-needed support to our farmers.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has released a report estimating that Bill C-234 will save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030. This would result in a reduction of food costs for Canadian families, many of whom are currently struggling to afford groceries. The report highlights the importance of passing this bill to support the agricultural industry and improve the financial well-being of Canadians. It is concerning to me, and should be a concern to everyone, that with this report, the Liberals are still against it. I would question the motive behind not wanting to reduce financial stress on Canadian citizens.
It is time to stand up for our hard-working farmers and families. I have heard from many of my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia about the effect of the carbon tax on their everyday life. We are experiencing a 52% increase in monthly visits to the food banks and have also had reports of previous donors now becoming clients. This level of increase is something I never imagined we would be experiencing in Canada.
Theresa in Wasa has recently moved into her car due to the continuous prices increases. Alex in Cranbrook has three jobs to make ends meet for him and his wife. Richard in Creston was charged $39.25 for his natural gas with a $57.00 carbon tax fee, and then that tax was taxed.
Why is the Liberal-NDP government implementing a tax and also taxing that tax? It looks like another way for it to line its pockets with our constituents' money so that it can continue to overspend with its off-balance budget. The government's goal seems to be testing how hard it can push Canadians to their financial breaking point. I can tell this House that we are already there. Families are feeling the financial strain and it is spilling into all areas of their lives.
Julie, a senior, called me and said that she had a piece of toast and half an apple for breakfast. Why only half an apple? She said she saves the other half for lunch. She could not remember the last time she had eaten meat. It is critical that the government fully understands the appalling financial state it has put this country in. Our seniors have worked their younger adult lives to contribute to society and better this country, and their reward? Taxes upon taxes, and deciding which half of an apple to eat for their meal. The government's legacy is going to be its citizens choosing between heat or food to make ends meet.
ATCO Wood Products, a third-generation sawmill in my riding, produces wood veneer, wood chips, biomass, wood gardening supplies, posts and landscape ties. It has reported it paid $400,000 in 2023 for carbon tax. In 2030, it will be $1.2 million.
The family-owned and run business gives back and provides excellent resources to our community and the country. It is successful in sustainable forest management on both Crown and private lands by thorough planning and responsible practices. It is hard to fathom that the tax that was meant to be an incentive to cut emissions has now become a noose for businesses providing essential products to our citizens.
What is really interesting is the tax on the carbon tax. This year that is $500 million, rising to $1 billion in 2030, and a total tax grab of $6.23 billion over the next eight years.
It is concerning to see the failure of the NDP-Liberal government in promoting Canadian LNG to the European Union. Instead, the EU had to fund Russia's war machine, which is not a sustainable solution. As a country with the most ethical leader in production energy, it is disappointing to see no action being taken. That is a missed opportunity for Canada to promote its clean energy resources on the global stage. We urge the government to take immediate action in promoting Canadian LNG to the European Union.
I am deeply concerned about the rising unaffordability in Canada, which is causing many Canadians to lose their homes and contributing to homelessness. This crisis is having a devastating impact on individuals, families and communities across this country.
Further to that, the homelessness crisis is directly contributing to the ever-expanding opioid crisis, as many individuals who are homeless are turning to drugs to cope. Due the increase of opioid users, business owners are reporting damages to their stores and property, resulting in them no longer contributing to the community in the ways they need to. We need to stop the crime. This trickle effect directly takes away from the community, since business owners are now putting money back into repairs and not into the community.
As I have mentioned, our food banks are seeing the results of this effect. This is a complex issue that requires attention from all levels of government, and the Liberal government needs to take immediate action to address the root causes of this unaffordability: overtaxing.
Conservatives believe that it is critical to support our farmers and our families by ensuring that they are not burdened with additional taxes. Adding a frivolous tax to make up for the government's budgetary mismanagement is downright shameful and it needs to stop. We need to fix the budget.
We will continue to fight for the elimination of the tax on everything, for everyone, for good. We believe Canadians should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money and not be burdened by unnecessary taxes.
We believe the red tape on the housing industry, preventing homes from being built, needs to stop. We need to fix homes.
We believe that the dream of owning a home, going on a warm holiday, having a secure retirement and not living paycheque to paycheque should not be a dream at all, it should be a reality. Overtaxing is taking away from our Canadian citizens. Our hard-working constituents should not be weighed down by the necessity of having multiple jobs or choosing heat or food.
We need to axe the tax.
1440 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 2:35:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the impacts of climate change on our agricultural sector are incredible, which is why we have put in place measures to help our farmers diminish their greenhouse gas emissions.
Let us talk about how much the farmers in the ridings of our colleagues have received: in the riding of the member for Carleton, $2.4 million; in the riding of the member for Dufferin—Caledon, $3.7 million; in the riding of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, $22 million.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the points I was raising just before question period. The Conservatives never talk about the rebates that are given to families and businesses in Canada, nor do they talk about the fact that 100% of the revenue collected from the price on pollution is given back to families and businesses.
There are also costs associated with climate change. Climate change is costing all three levels of government exorbitant amounts and it is also affecting the cost of insurance coverage for individuals and households in Canada. Let us also not forget that 77 jurisdictions around the world have some type of price on pollution or carbon. Canada is not the only one.
Finally, the reality is that it is possible to address climate change and to make life more affordable. The Conservatives do not think that is possible, but we think that it is very important to do both of those things.
I want to bring it back to Kings—Hants, my riding in Nova Scotia, and I want to talk about affordability and environmental action at the same time. We introduced a heat pump program in 2022. It was called, simply, the oil to heat pump program, and it is to help individuals who were on home heating oil to make a transition.
There are one million Canadian households that still use heating oil in this country, and 286,000 of them are in Atlantic Canada, but they are spread all across this country. The evidence would suggest that the majority of people who still use heating oil are people who are lower income and who do not have the ability to transition off that fuel source. That is exactly why the government introduced a $10,000 program to help people be able to make that transition.
When I went out in my riding this past summer, I talked to seniors. They would tell me that this is a great program, but the project cost is about $15,000 or $16,000. By the time they would put the heat pump into their home, get the electricity and upgrade things in their house, it would cost a bit more than the $10,000. They told me that they could really not afford that and that they did not have the money to make the transition.
Because of the leadership of members of Parliament on this side, and because the government listened, we introduced a program that is going to help provide up to $20,000 to households that are below the provincial median income in Nova Scotia. This will also be in New Brunswick, if New Brunswick wants to sign on with Premier Higgs, and certainly in Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I know conversations are happening with the Government of Manitoba and the Government of British Columbia. This is a program that would be open across the country, where three-quarters, or $15,000, of the money would be paid by the Government of Canada, and $5,000 would be coming in from the provinces.
I remember having a conversation with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets a few weeks before Christmas, and I compared it to this. Our affordability plan is that we paused the carbon price on home heating oil for three years to help people utilize the program I just talked about to be able to make a transition. I said to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets that his party's affordability plan is to take 17¢ off a litre of home heating oil. Make no mistake, that is extremely important in today's context, but what we are offering is not only that 17¢ a litre right now but also a long-term savings where people can save up to thousands of dollars a year by being able to move over to a heat pump, which is more affordable than home heating oil.
It is not slogans; it is solutions. That is what we are focused on. That is good for the environment and good for affordability, and what I am focused on is affordability for my constituents. Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to that.
How about the fact that we have increased the rural rebate? I represent the type of riding in Atlantic Canada where my constituents do not have the same public transit options available to other Canadians, particularly those in more urban areas. I was very pleased to see the government make changes that help ensure greater equity under this system to ensure that, as we return the proceeds of the carbon price, which of course eight out of 10 families receive more money back, we are being mindful of how rural families are impacted.
That is something this government has done. Liberal members of Parliament have been able to adjust policies because we have asked important and intelligent questions. We have not just stood up and said that we want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether in the country. We achieved more, in terms of the adjustments, than the Conservatives had in eight years, just as they denigrated the policy.
Conservatives do not just oppose carbon pricing. They oppose all forms of what this government is doing on climate change, and I will give a few examples.
This is on Bill C-49, and I will give the Conservatives their due in that, in a world of communications, we have to be slick in how we communicate to the public. Not everyone watches the House of Commons, of course, so they have the line “technology, not taxes”, which is the idea that we will look to focusing on renewable energy, I presume, or different types of technology to help drive down emissions. This is great. I believe in that too. I think the price signal is important, and they actually support one another. However, we then have an example in Atlantic Canada.
Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accord, which is the agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government. The reason it is a joint partnership is that it was tied to the oil and gas development that happened in the 1980s. This is extremely important to Atlantic Canada, and we take the Atlantic accord seriously. I remember when the legislation was introduced before Christmas, and it is just as simple as allowing those accord provisions to extend to the regulation of offshore wind, which plays into green hydrogen, and we all know that is a technology that could help bring down emissions. It is also really good for jobs. I thought this was going to get unanimous approval. I did not think there would be any issue. However, the Conservatives gave us a gift because they stepped up and basically went against their own slogan. They do not even support the type of technology that can help bring down emissions and drive really good jobs to Atlantic Canada.
My job is not only to talk about why that is important to the region I represent, but also to highlight and parse out what it is that the Conservatives do not like about this bill. I sat at the natural resources committee for two hours this week, and the Minister for Natural Resources appeared, but two hours later, I still had not heard a credible idea from the Conservatives about why they are against the bill.
This is part of a continuing trend because, under the Harper government, members will remember that the member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time, Bill Casey, left the Conservative caucus. Why did he leave the Conservative caucus? It was because Harper was trying to impact and denigrate the Atlantic accords.
Let us not forget that the last Conservative prime minister—
1321 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 3:29:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy that the member opposite likes our idea about technology, not taxes.
I would inform him that the U.S. is the only country in the world that met its Paris targets, and it did that by providing capital incentives to industry to reduce emissions and by implementing more nuclear technology and more green technology. That is the right direction.
Would the member admit that, since the carbon tax is not helping the Liberals meet any of their emissions target, it is time to abandon that, cap the increase planned for April 1 and focus, instead, on the same kind of incentives that were successful for the U.S.?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
