SoVote

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

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Feb/1/24 12:36:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting speech from the member. I would like to congratulate him on the birth of a child. I think that is an important thing. First of all, I want to say how much I love rain. I am lucky to like rain because I live in a rain forest. Right now, in my riding, we are in a moderate to severe drought across that area. At the same time, we are seeing extreme storms and rain in our area that are washing away so much because we do not have the normal amount of water being absorbed into the land. We are seeing forest fires in my area, and we have never seen that before. Therefore, I feel so confused that Conservatives continue to mislead, especially British Columbians, who do not pay any federal pricing, that somehow their plan is going to work. Can the member tell us what their environmental plan is?

158 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Feb/1/24 12:37:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the kind wishes on the birth of my daughter. As a farm kid, I am well aware because we have been dealing with a number of droughts and floods for decades, but obviously there is some concern regarding the frequency of those. That is why I think it is important that we rely on technology and not taxes. I will use the case of agriculture as an example, in which we can use genetic improvements to improve drought and moisture resistance. The reality is that punishing Canadians with this punitive carbon tax is not going to do anything to stop the pollution coming out of major economies such as China and India, which are a bigger cause of this. Driving Canadians into poverty is not going to help—

136 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/1/24 12:37:51 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha has the floor.

12 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

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

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

Feb/1/24 12:48:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, how things change for a bumper sticker. In 2021, the member who just spoke actually campaigned on an election platform that had a price on pollution. There are actually 19 members who not only campaigned on it in 2021 but also campaigned on it in 2008. There are 19 Conservative members, including the leader of the Conservative Party. How things have changed. As other countries in Europe are accepting the need for a price on pollution, and even many American states, places south of Canada, we recognize that the environment matters. Why is the Conservative Party today, that far right MAGA party, in so much disagreement in recognizing that climate issues need to be addressed? When will the Conservative Party come out with a climate—

128 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/1/24 12:49:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha has the floor.

10 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

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

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

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

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/1/24 12:50:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we have to axe the tax. People and Canadians are taxed into oblivion. Those bills I read into the record are asinine. We are being taxed on a tax. I go back to the butter. If we take away anything, it is the butter effect. It is melting away businesses and families. When butter goes from $2.49 to $7.49 in eight years, that is catastrophic. It is the one example of how the carbon tax does not work. We must get rid of the tax.

93 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/1/24 12:51:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I care about the price of butter. I am a cook, and I admit that I tend to go the Julia Child route: If there is more butter in the recipe, it never hurt anybody. I know the price of butter has gone really sky-high, but I just googled to check. The price of butter in both Canada and the U.S., in both countries, has increased dramatically. There is a reason, which I have dug into a bit because I was prompted. I wish Emily Mae's Cookies the very best. I double-checked, and we are not related. Her name is spelled “Mae” and I am “May”. Anyway, I wish her the best, but the price of butter in Canada and the U.S., where they do not have a carbon price, has gone sky-high. The explanation, when we look for it, is that the heat waves through the summer meant that cows produced less milk at the same time that consumer demand for dairy products like ice cream, because it was hot, went sky-high, so we ended up having a double whammy for dairy producers. I am meeting with dairy producers next week. I can ask them about it, but the price of butter in the U.S. ranges in U.S. dollars from $2.92 a pound to $8.76 a pound, which converts to Canadian dollars from $3.92 a pound to $11.57—

249 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/1/24 12:52:57 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha a few seconds to answer.

16 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Feb/1/24 12:53:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/1/24 12:53:24 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

8 words

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

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

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Feb/1/24 1:02:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will bring facts to the table. BCBC is a very reputable industry representative and it has been very concerned about where CleanBC is going. I will get to my question, but this is from BCBC's article, entitled “BCBC warns CleanBC will lead to ‘serious job losses’ on path to 2030”. The article states, “That data suggested that B.C.’s economy would be $28.1 billion smaller in 2030 due to the impact of CleanBC policies.” The member across the way swears that everything is going to be grand in B.C. Our economy is going to contract by almost $30 billion because of policies like this. Could the member please explain that?

124 words

Hon. Hedy Fry

Feb/1/24 1:03:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think I said it all in my speech, but I will reiterate it. BC Stats and Statistics Canada say that the B.C. economy rose by 12.4% when other economies in Canada were going down. They said that 300 new companies, since the tax took effect, are now moving into B.C. to work in green technology. We are looking at about 130,000 new jobs in B.C. and about $90,000 per capita. I have no idea what the member is talking about. The statistics prove it.

93 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

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

Hon. Hedy Fry

Feb/1/24 1:05:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that we do not just have a price on pollution. As we can clearly see, we are investing in green technologies across the country. In Quebec, B.C. and across the country, we are helping to build new industries. We are giving them start-up funds, we are moving them forward and they are growing extremely well. That is one of the things we are doing. At the same time, some of that money has to go to paying the costs. I just read the amounts out from the Senate report. The costs of fires and floods, the damage to farmers and livestock and the damage to families have to be reimbursed somehow. There is a cost of not having a carbon tax. There is a cost of climate change.

136 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/1/24 1:06:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that I agree with much of what was said around the impacts and costs of the climate crisis being experienced by people across the country and in my home province of British Columbia. One thing I noted was when the member talked about how if we use it, we should pay for it. I have one observation that contradicts that. Suncor, with carbon loopholes, paid one-fourteenth of what it should have paid last year in taxes. In fact, Canada's five biggest oil and gas companies had $38 billion in combined profits last year at the expense of Canadians. This is why my NDP colleagues have been calling on big oil to pay what it owes. I am wondering what the member can share around why the Liberals are continuing to protect the profits of big corporations instead of finally calling out big oil and gas to pay what they owe.

158 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273