SoVote

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

Feb/1/24 4:12:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the words that the member across the way was just saying. He said he wanted to speak about “today”. Maybe I could do a bit of a reflection on today's Conservative Party— Mr. Damien Kurek: There is no one else to talk. I am shocked.

57 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 4:13:15 p.m.
Watch

Order. I want to remind members if they do not have the floor or if they want to have conversations, to please step out. It was not just one individual, but that member was maybe the loudest. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

41 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/1/24 4:13:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about today's Conservative Party. Today's Conservative Party is not the same political party that was there during the time of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell and Joe Clark. It is totally different. In fact, to do a fair comparison of today's Conservative Party, we really need to look south. We need to look at it in terms of the whole MAGA movement that is taking place in the United States and how that movement of sorts is coming into Canada and being ushered in by today's Conservative Party. Canadians need to be aware of that because it is having a real tangible impact on public policy. The best example one can likely talk about is the price on pollution, or the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate. The amount of misinformation that the Conservative Party today is circulating through all forms of communication, in particular through social media, would shame most people, especially leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party from the past. I do not say that lightly at all. If I may, let me read a couple of quotes that I was provided. One is from Joe Clark, former prime minister of Canada and former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. He is reflecting on today's Conservative Party. He says, “I think it's a party that does not respect the progressive traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party and, consequently, does not reflect the country.... My party is over.” Let us go to Brian Mulroney, again, a former Progressive Conservative prime minister. He said, “I led a Progressive Conservative government. We were very progressive in areas...”. He went on to name a few, and continued, “...we were more conservative” in other areas. He even referenced that he might have at times been more conservative than Stephen Harper. Then he says, “That's the way it should be for a progressive conservative government, but they amputated the progressive part of the name, which is okay, but you shouldn't amputate the part of our heritage and I think that they work better together when both are prominent and Canadians feel more comfortable with it.” He spoke of that progressive side. That is not just hearing it from me as a Liberal. We are talking about former prime ministers of the Progressive Conservative Party who are saying that today's Conservative Party is not a progressive party at all; that the Conservatives have abandoned that aspect of their heritage. The first woman prime minister of Canada was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Kim Campbell. What does Kim Campbell say about today's Conservative Party? She said, “Well, I've never joined the Conservative Party of Canada. I think Joe Clark expressed it that he didn't leave the party, the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative Party, and...our party was the party of the Acid Rain Treaty, the Montreal Protocol.... I'm sorry, I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it.” Today's Conservative Party should not be in any way looked at from the heritage of the Progressive Conservative Party because it has completely gone to the extreme far right. It is, for all intents and purposes, a MAGA Conservative Party here in Canada and that is the style and the approach that the Conservatives are taking. Earlier this week, they came out with their “four priorities”. They have already indicated what their four priorities are going to be in the next election. What is going to be their campaign election platform? It is no surprise that number one is to get rid of the price on pollution. An hon. member: Axe the tax. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, as the member says, to “axe the tax”, as they thump their chest and feel so good about that, the only political party, one of the reasons why they have lost so much respect from Progressive Conservatives. It is a great bumper sticker. They like that bumper sticker. That is the reason why they want to use it. Let me remind people who might be following the debate and the Conservatives who are here listening. They have heard me say, in the past, that in 2021, under the leadership of Erin O'Toole, every one of them campaigned on an election platform that said they favoured a price on pollution. That was only two years ago and they were in favour of a carbon tax, every one of them. How things have changed. There is a special group of 19 Conservatives today who campaigned, as candidates, back in 2008, when Stephen Harper was there. As far as Stephen Harper's campaign literature is concerned, let me read directly from “The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians”. This is what he says: “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will implement our Turning the Corner action plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms by 20 per cent over 2006”. It goes on. He supported a price on pollution. There are 19 members here today who campaigned on a price on pollution going as far back as 2008. Interestingly enough, the leader of the Conservative Party today was one of those 19 people. It is hard to imagine what Canadians would think. A word that would come to my mind would be “hypocrisy”. A simple answer would be that they have completely abandoned any sense of a progressive nature to their party. That is the reason why, when they talk about their four priorities, every Canadian needs to be aware of, especially, priority number three. Their priority number three is to cut government expenditures. My constituents and, in fact, Canadians from every region of our nation, love our health care system. They love our child care program and the rolling out of the dental care program. These are all programs that Canadians want to see. One cannot trust the Conservatives with regard to them. They will cut, if history has shown. Even, at times, Progressive Conservatives have cut those programs. Can we imagine what a true Conservative far-right party would actually do? They talk about common sense. Common sense to them is cut, cut, cut. Be aware of a hidden Conservative agenda. That is what I would suggest. The misinformation that they provide to Canadians continues to grow. Again, let us talk about the price on pollution. They will stand up and say, “Do we know what? We are concerned about the impact it is having on the price of inflation on groceries.” They howl from their seats on that issue. They try to give the false impression that it is 6% or 7% or more. Earlier today, there was one member who said 20%, as a direct result on inflation. I do not know where the member gets her math from. At the end of the day, they are trying to create this impression to Canadians that the price on pollution is causing inflation. That is just not true, and the sad thing is that they know it, but it does not prevent them from saying it. It is not just me saying this. The Bank of Canada is recognized around the world as a politically independent agency that has monetary control in good part in terms of the things that are taking place here in Canada. What does the Bank of Canada say in regards to the carbon tax and the impact it has on inflation? Well, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the man who runs it, says 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.” Well, we know that the leader of the Conservative Party was saying that he did not like the Governor of the Bank of Canada and that he was going to fire him. At least at one point he was saying that, but I think he might have reversed, and the member for Abbotsford is paying the price for saying that it was a stupid thing for the leader to say that, because now he sits in the far back. However, if members do not want to believe the Bank of Canada, Statistics Canada does a lot of work. We all look at Stats Canada results. Private industry, governments, non-profits rely very heavily on Stats Canada. Stats Canada suggests that “carbon taxes increased the average cost of food by about 0.33 per cent relative to what they would be in the absence of carbon taxes.” That is the entire effect. “Other necessities such as clothing and footwear are approximately 0.2 per cent more expensive due to the carbon tax.” Members do not have to believe me. Look at what the Bank of Canada is saying. Look at what Stats Canada is saying. Contrast that to the disinformation, the intentional misleading information that is funnelled out of the Conservative Party of Canada today. It is disgraceful. That is what I mean by the far right. However, it does not end there. We get member after member stand up and clearly mislead not only their constituents but Canadians as a whole when they say that they are going to axe the carbon tax. However, what they do not mention is the carbon rebate. Over 80% of the constituents I represent, when we take a look at the carbon tax and what they pay into it and compare that to the carbon rebate, or the money they get back, actually get more money in their pocket than is taken out. Again, members do not have to believe me. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent office, is the one who is saying that. Yet, we get the Conservative Party time and time again saying that they are going to cut the carbon tax, that it is more costly for Canadians, and it is just absolutely misleading information. It does not matter to them, because they have their agenda, and we had a sample of that earlier this week when they talked about those four priorities. They want a bumper sticker that says “axe the tax”, and that is what it is all about. They do not care about good, solid public policy. They tell us to look at other countries. I can talk about France, England, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Mexico and many states in the United States, which all have a price on pollution. Even Ukraine has a price on pollution. Canada is a trading nation— An hon. member: No, it doesn't. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, it does have a price on pollution. An hon. member: At 80¢ a tonne? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, this is the problem. Maybe there are those in the Conservative Party who do not really look at the notes provided to them by their party. When they do some independent research, they will find that a lot of the stuff they are given is misinformation. However, they purport it to be true. Let us look at Ukraine. The Conservative Party today, for the first time, is going to be voting against a trade agreement on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is that? Even the New Democrats are voting in favour of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I believe the Green Party and the Bloc Party are also doing so. It is only the Conservative Party. They come up with this red herring that they are voting against it because it has the words “carbon tax”, or it is dealing with a price on pollution, and they do not want that in a trade agreement. Well, duh. Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Can we imagine this? The President of Ukraine came to Canada, at a time of war in Europe, to sign off on an agreement that is beneficial to Ukraine, Canada and, ultimately, many others, and the Conservatives have chosen to vote against it. It brings us back to the question of why. I believe the price on pollution is a bit of a red herring for them on this, and it has a lot more to do with their current leader wanting to imitate Donald Trump. The Conservative leader and his MAGA politics are very real. As we get closer to an election, Canadians are going to become much more aware of the Conservative agenda, even the hidden aspects of it. We recognize the importance of trade. Earlier, when making comments, a Conservative member talked about how foreign investment is down. How can Conservatives justify giving false information on foreign investment? If we look at last year, with respect to dollars of investment on a per capita basis, no other country in the world received more foreign investment than Canada did. However, Conservatives go around giving a false impression and have no problem doing it. I can provide proof of the comments I have made on the record in the last 19 or so minutes, but Conservative members will still stand up and say the absolute opposite. For me, it creates a number of ethical issues that I will not necessarily get to talk about. What blew my mind earlier today in question period was when the Minister of Housing said that Jenni Byrne, who is the campaign manager and former girlfriend of the Leader of the Conservative Party, is now an active lobbyist for Loblaws. I hope Conservatives will ask me a question on that. I would be happy to expand on the bizarreness of that issue.

2338 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/1/24 4:33:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for taking away 20 minutes of my life, which I will never get back. I often laugh at this comical narrative the Liberals are trying to build of comparing the Conservative Party to Donald Trump because it wants to stand up for working families across this country by making life less expensive for them. I see my good friend from Saint John—Rothesay, whom I deem a reasonable and practical Canadian. I recall in 2015, when the Liberals talked about taxes, debt and deficit. Because of these comparisons, I often hear from people that this is not the party of Chrétien-Martin, but a radical, ideological, leftist cult led by a two-bit actor, who memorizes lines given to him by much smarter socialists. What happened to the Liberal Party of Chrétien-Martin?

147 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/1/24 4:34:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a political party that has not abandoned its heritage. It has built additional supports in health care, supported Canada's middle class by providing tax breaks and supported seniors by dramatically increasing the guaranteed income supplement. It has invested more in housing than any other political party in the last 60-plus years. It has driven an economy that has generated close to 2.5 million additional jobs since 2015, and it has built Canada's infrastructure. The list goes on. It is a proud Liberal heritage. However, there is a lot more work to do. I believe that the more Canadians get to know the member's leader, the more people will be coming back and wanting to see us continue on.

127 words

Seniors

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/1/24 4:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Barrie—Innisfil got up and said it was one of the worst 20 minutes of his life, yet on every Conservative opposition day, debates drag on for so long that they feel like several lifetimes. That said, we are in a parliamentary setting. Words matter. Tone matters. We have to be careful about our comparisons. The parliamentary secretary said that the leader of the official opposition was behaving like Donald Trump. That is wrong. I think that Mr. Trump could learn a lot from the Conservative leader's methods. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what Mr. Trump could learn from the Conservative leader's methods.

117 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/1/24 4:36:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat convinced that there have to be some ties there. We had a commercial go out that compared the type of language being used by the MAGA far right in the United States, and it is actually quite surprising how much the current leader of the Conservative Party has adopted that. For example, the way he talks about Ukraine as being a faraway land, the way he talks about budget-related matters and so forth. It is a great comparison, and I wish I could flash the link on the screen. It is a wonderful comparison between Donald Trump and the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. I would encourage people to watch it.

119 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/1/24 4:37:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier in the debate, the Conservatives raised the issue of the GST and HST, which is something they created through Brian Mulroney and then Stephen Harper. Then they dished it off by saying that we cannot go back 15 years or 20 years, but every bill we pay still has the GST and HST on it. In fact, the history of this country is bringing in the GST with the Conservatives and the Liberals to actually reduce corporate taxes for the oil and gas industries, the telcos and the pharmaceutical companies and shift that tax burden to the general public, the consumers, with prices at the pump, at the grocery store and other places. The reality is that we have actually reduced the GST at certain points in time and taken it off feminine products and other things. In the Liberals' past behaviours and practices, they so-called fought among themselves with cutting the corporate taxes a lot faster and deeper. Will they amend these behaviours, reduce the GST and the HST, take the burden off consumers and put it where it belongs, on the richest corporations that abuse Canadians?

192 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/1/24 4:38:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are different ways in which we can support Canada's working class, especially at the low end, through the credit system. We see basic income increases and even cuts, as I pointed out earlier, to the middle class. We have seen dramatic increases to supports for children through the Canada child program and, more recently, the enactment of a child care program that will see $10-a-day day care. I believe most provinces are now providing that. We are talking about literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. The dental program has been helping children and will be helping seniors this year. We continue to work at expanding that. There are all sorts of investments a progressive government can actually make, and that we have made, in order to ensure that there is higher equity among the population. That includes, by the way, getting tougher on—

152 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 4:39:33 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member can maybe add to his next answer. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

18 words

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

Feb/1/24 4:39:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's focus on the question of what former Progressive Conservative prime ministers and leaders have said about the current state of the Conservative Party. They are obviously two very different parties. My focus is on lamenting that only in Canada, and now in the United States, do we have a division over how to respond to the climate crisis that falls along left-right lines in politics. That is really a shame, and it is not necessary. If we look back, who were the leaders in addressing the climate crisis in the 1980s? There was Margaret Thatcher. No one would suggest she was a leftist. The Iron Lady was pretty darn right wing, but she was trained in science and chemistry. She set up the Hadley Centre in England to take on climate change and be serious about it. Brian Mulroney was an early leader on climate change globally. He still calls on his successors, in what still calls itself a Conservative Party, to do the right thing and address the climate crisis.

180 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/1/24 4:40:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and that is why I spent time emphasizing what Progressive Conservative leaders have talked about when reflecting on today's Conservative Party. We are starting to see more distance. A lot of Progressive Conservatives are disappointed because, at the end of the day, they have completely disregarded that aspect of the Progressive Conservatives' heritage. I think that is not healthy. We should see all political parties of all stripes looking at science and doing things to improve our climate. Sadly, we have real Conservatives today who still deny that climate change is happening.

99 words

Mr. Wayne Long (Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 4:41:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech today; it was very enlightening. We know this for a fact: The party opposite ran on pricing pollution. Whether its members want to admit that is totally up to them; it was in their platform, and we all know it. We also know that the official opposition's job is to challenge our government, to hold our feet to the fire and so on; however, its job is also to offer solutions and alternatives. Have the members of the party opposite ever offered a solution to pricing pollution? We know our climate is warming. Have they ever offered a solution, or are they just going to let it rip?

119 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/1/24 4:42:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that we have seen absolutely no indication whatsoever, in a tangible way, from the official opposition party as to what its environmental policy actually is. That is very discouraging. Many say it is because of the element made up of complete climate deniers, who just do not see it as a priority at all. Therefore, they continue to want to deceive Canadians on the price on pollution.

74 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 4:43:20 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Natural Resources.

47 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Feb/1/24 4:43:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin I would like to recognize that I will be splitting my time with someone I think is one of the greatest MPs in the House of Commons, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I want to do some carbon tax math to begin. This is carbon tax 101. I would actually suggest that the members opposite grab their calculators, follow along with me and do this math. Two years ago we had the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, at the finance committee. I asked him how much the carbon tax is responsible for inflation. He said 0.5%. He came back in a subsequent meeting two years later and said it is actually 0.6%, and he had underestimated a bit. We got that. We are clear on that. This is from the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not think he is going to make up these numbers. Then, he was actually at the finance committee today, and I asked him about the increase on April 1. I said it would probably be 0.1%, and he said I had once again underestimated and it would actually be 0.15%, so that gives us 0.75%. We can put this in our calculator if we want. Currently, the inflation rate is 3.4%. If we divide 0.75 by 3.4, that gives us a percentage. My 10-year-old is learning that in school right now. That gives us 22%. I am sorry. I actually underestimated, and I apologize to the House. I said it was 20%. I underestimated again, as I did with the governor as well. It is 22%. We could bring down inflation by 22% today if we eliminated the carbon tax, and that would almost bring us in range. Of course, the Bank of Canada has a range of inflation that it is trying to get to. It is trying to get to 2%. We would almost be there if we took just one action and eliminated the carbon tax. That is carbon tax math. Once again, it is 0.75 divided by 3.4. My 10-year-old is learning this— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

383 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/1/24 4:46:07 p.m.
Watch

There seem to be some members trying to ask questions. I would ask them to wait until the appropriate time to do that. The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has the floor.

34 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/1/24 4:46:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that, and I apologize. I get passionate as well. However, the reality is that the rebate is taken into consideration. The Governor of the Bank of Canada looked at the entire picture, including the rebate, and said that if we eliminated the carbon tax today, we would reduce inflation by 22%. We have had some fun about the math and stuff like that, but that has real impacts. I am sure members in their ridings have heard from people, because I certainly have heard, in mine, from the ones who are about to lose their homes. Why? It is because interest rates are high, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada must do the work that the government is unwilling to do. The government is blindly pushing people into losing their houses and losing their jobs, as well as sending two million people to food banks. They laugh at this, but it is math. It is 22%. All they would have to do is eliminate that carbon tax. If they believe in that carbon tax like they say they do, let us have a carbon tax election, and let us do it today, because I know who will win that election. Then we will hear them cast aspersions like, “They're climate deniers, they're this, they're that.” The reality is that the carbon tax has failed. If anyone is a climate change denier, they are on that side of the aisle. The Liberals are failing to achieve their climate targets. Their own climate change commissioner said that they will not achieve their 2030 targets. They have yet to achieve one single target, so if we want to talk about climate change denial, it is on that side of the aisle. Let us talk a bit about the economy and why it is so important to get a new direction. The member from the other side said that there has been a recent uptake in investments, which is true. I am glad for that, but let us look at the overall picture. Since 2014, we have had some of the weakest foreign investment in the world, and we are forecasted by the IMF to actually have the worst foreign investment over the next 40 years. Our GDP per capita over the last 10 years is 4%, which is the total growth for GDP per capita. Do we know what it is in the United States? It is 47%, or 10 times ours. GDP per capita, by the way, is not just any number. GDP per capita is the number one way of measuring the economic impact on the individual. The reality is that the split has not been even. Who has been hurt the most? It is the most vulnerable; those who are in an economically weak position are hurting. That is why there are two million people going to the food banks. I hope everyone understands the carbon tax math. Hopefully, over there, they will understand this too. GDP per capita is the economic measure of the welfare of the individual in a given state. In the U.S., in the last 10 years, it has grown by 47%. In Canada, it has grown by 4%, which is 0.8% per year. We need change, and we need it fast. Underpinning that weak per capita GDP number is a lack of productivity. I will be candid: Our weak productivity numbers date back decades, but it has taken on an exponential weakness in the last decade. Our productivity numbers put us near the bottom of the OECD. Quite frankly, I do not mean to be an alarmist, but it is just the reality: On the trajectory that we are on with our productivity numbers, we will not even be an advanced economy in the next 20 years. It is wild. If we look at the GDP per hour, which is a measurement of how much a worker in Canada contributes, in the U.S. it is $75, in Switzerland it is around $95, and Canada it is $55. Why do we look at this? Productivity has three pillars that underpin it. One is capital investment, and as I said, over the last 10 years we are among the weakest in the OECD. The second is our workforce. We actually have a really strong and great workforce and the best workers, I believe, in Canada. The other part of it is innovation, and that is where we are falling down. We have great minds here who produce great ideas, but we are not making it intellectual property. What is happening is that many of the best minds are going to Silicon Valley or other places in the world, and we need to make sure that Canadians feel comfortable and that they win. There is one area where our productivity is among the highest in the world. I said that Canada's GDP is, on average, $55 per hour. In the energy sector, it is $500 per hour. What is the government doing in that sector, one of the few bright lights of our otherwise dim economy? It is crushing it. It is trying to kill the energy sector in Canada. Members over there will say that we have to, for the sake of the planet. In reality, we are shutting down Canadian energy and it is just going to other parts of the world. Instead of having manufacturing in great places like Cobourg, Port Hope or Hamilton in Ontario, or in many of the great towns and cities out west, it is being transported across the world. The reality is that it could be powered by hydroelectric power in Winnipeg, Quebec or Niagara Falls, or by clean, emission-free nuclear power in parts of Ontario, or we could ship those jobs, as is going on right now, to Guangdong province, where it is powered by coal. The carbon tax plays into and affects this, because it is pushing jobs there. The reality is there is no carbon tax in West Virginia; there is no carbon tax in Guangdong province, and there is a very small carbon tax in Mexico. As we increase costs here, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are making emissions in the world higher, because, to a certain extent, it matters what Canada's emissions are only in terms of how we are affecting global emissions. Pollution knows no borders. Our focus really has to be on how we reduce global emissions. What is happening now and what has happened over the last 10 years is that we have made the cost of doing business so difficult in Canada, not least through the carbon tax, that we are pushing manufacturing and natural gas exploration outside of our borders. We actually increase emissions while at the same time decreasing our economic welfare. This is not a recipe for success.

1160 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 4:54:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving us this pseudolesson on economics. It is confusing to me that he does not understand basic economic terminology such as “taxation”, since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the carbon pricing system is not a concept of taxation and is understood in a constitutional context. What Conservatives really want us to do is axe the facts. I understand that “axing a regulatory charge and the climate action incentive payment” is not a good bumper sticker slogan. What Conservatives want to do is distract Canadians from what is really happening, ignore the facts and ignore science while our country burns. I would like to hear a comment about that.

122 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/1/24 4:55:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when the government takes money and no one has the ability to say no, it is a tax. That is just the reality. I do not care what the Supreme Court says on that. If the government wants to take money, but people do not pay it and they go to jail, that is a tax. It is simple. I went through the math. The Liberal-appointed Governor of the Bank of Canada, not some Conservative, said that even with the rebate it is 22% of inflation. I dare you to go back to your constituents and say you are going to increase inflation today by 20%, because that is what—

114 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 273