44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 19, 2024 10:00AM
- Mar/19/24 10:28:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion today is very short, clear and concise. They are relying on numbers, and I imagine that the Conservative Party is very thorough and does not pull numbers out of a hat. They claim that 70% of Canadians oppose the 23% tax hike that will take effect on April 1. However, if we look at the survey, we see that those numbers apply to the government's decision to exempt heating oil from the carbon pricing legislation, not to the legislation itself.
Did the Conservative Party forget to specify that in its motion?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.
I am thankful for the opportunity to once again clarify how having a price on carbon is the most effective way of addressing climate change and curtailing its devastating effects on the health and safety of Canadians. I have had an opportunity to go on television a couple of times with my colleague, the failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He and I have had a couple of debates on this issue, and I am proud to say that Canadians deserve action that addresses the horrific costs associated with climate change.
Also, today in the news, inflation numbers are in, and inflation is down around 2.8% from the high of at 8.1% in June 2022. Over the last three months, food and goods inflation have actually been negative. Groceries are going back down to normal. This is a really encouraging trend, and it is worth noting that it is happening in the context of our fighting climate change and lowering our emissions at the exact same time.
In 2023 we saw a record wildfire season here in Canada. More area was burned, more than double the historic record, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians were evacuated from their homes as a result. I remember that when I was kid, we used to talk about global warming, and there were always images of polar bears and the Amazon rainforest. However, climate change is not in some far-off place; it is right here. It was in the skies of Ottawa last summer when we were working here. There were people with asthma who could not come to work. People were not leaving their homes. There were respiratory distress alerts. In total, the area burned was 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada also concluded that the average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could cost more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1 billion a year, which is what they are at right now, to over $5 billion a year, and that must be accompanied by an increase in premium income. Climate change is not free, and pollution should not be free either. There are very real costs associated with having one's house burn down or having to flee one's home and job due to an evacuation order.
We also know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. The Conservatives on the other side might bellow at me and deny the existence of climate change, as they always do, but it does not change the fact.
Emissions are on their way down in Canada. We have reversed the disastrous Harper legacy of rising emissions up until 2015. We have done that by putting a price on carbon pollution. We have reduced our emissions, and that encourages reductions right across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide what changes they are going to make. It also creates incentives for Canadian businesses to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services.
However, members do not have to believe me that it is being done right, as we are doing here in Canada. There is a gentlemen, William Nordhaus, who has a Nobel prize in economics that he was awarded in 2018 for his work on carbon pricing and macroeconomics. He said that Canada is getting carbon pricing right, that it is both effective and affordable for consumers and it lowers emissions right across the economy.
This is because the bulk of proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system go straight back into the pockets of Canadians. In provinces where the fuel charge applies, eight out of 10 households continue to get more money back through their quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system. For the fiscal year starting on April 1, a family of four will receive, under the Canada carbon rebate, $1,800 in Alberta, $1,200 in Manitoba, $1,120 in Ontario, $1,504 in Saskatchewan, $760 in New Brunswick, $824 in Nova Scotia, $880 in Prince Edward Island and $1,192 in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When I was on one of the TV programs I mentioned earlier with the failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, I asked the member whether he had cashed his cheque, which would have been around $1,300 as he has a family of more than four in Saskatchewan, and he refused to answer. The Conservatives repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the rebate program is an effective way to combat the affordability crisis and it is an effective way to lower our emissions. More importantly, for eight out of 10 households, these amounts represent more than they will pay as a result of the federal pricing pollution system. Remember, the federal government does not keep any proceeds from the federal fuel charge. They are all returned to the jurisdiction in which they are collected.
Carbon pricing works and climate change is real. It does not matter how much the Conservatives yell and repeat their slogans and lines written by their campaign team; we know that there are many ways to make affordability a reality in Canada. That is why we have seen the inflation numbers come down. We have seen groceries become a bit more affordable in the last couple of months. That is really positive news.
According to economists, the inflation on food and other goods, like telecommunications, was actually negative over the last couple of months. This is in the context of pricing carbon. If Conservatives are going to say that pricing carbon leads to inflation, then how have we seen a rising price on pollution over the last three years associated with a decrease in our inflation? We know that there are many ways to make life more affordable, and affordability has been a top concern of the government since we got elected in 2015. Serious governments need to have a plan to fight for affordability, the environment, reducing emissions and to fight climate change at the same time.
Conservatives have been talking about food banks a lot lately, which is important. I volunteer at food banks. I support a lot of poverty reduction and poverty elimination agencies, and I meet with officials from those organizations on a frequent basis. They have a lot of really good recommendations for our government. They have recommendations for a universal basic income and how to expand programs like the Canada child benefit. They have recommendations such as making sure that child care is affordable. Pharmacare is on their agenda. They want to make sure that Canadians can access their vital health care without having to make a decision between paying their bills and paying their medical expenses.
That is why we have been there. None of those food banks, food rescue organizations, poverty elimination experts or economists have pointed to a price on pollution as a cause for inaffordability or inflation, so we are delivering the support where it is most effective, to those who need it most.
People who live in rural communities, like many of my constituents in Milton, face unique realities. The measures we have introduced help to put even more money back into the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside large cities and have more expensive home heating and transportation costs. We have been very clear that we will continue to implement our pollution pricing system while ensuring that we continue to put more money into the pockets of Canadian households.
Most recently, through Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, which we voted on last night, we introduced measures to advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It introduces measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's plan to both fight climate change and lower our emissions, as well as to ensure that families can pay their bills. Making life affordable for Canadians while protecting the environment will always be a priority for our government, and it remains a priority today.
I would like to talk about two things. The first is about following through on a campaign commitment. The government was elected three times on a commitment to fight climate change and lower our emissions. Three times we campaigned on a promise to price pollution. In the hypocrisy of Conservatives, in their 2021 platform they planned to put a price on carbon with their then leader Erin O'Toole, but their failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, went back to his 2019 campaign promise of saying that Canada should be allowed to increase its emissions. He said it again yesterday on television. He has repeatedly said that Canada should be allowed to increase its emissions, which would make climate change worse; it would make sure that Canada is not a leader in fighting climate change on a global scale.
Integrity requires us to follow through on our commitments, and all of the Conservatives ran on a commitment to price carbon. Unfortunately they have taken their jackets off, flipped them inside out, tossed Erin O'Toole to the curb and are back to their 2019 campaign commitment of the failed leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, to ignore climate change altogether.
The second issue I want to address is political maturity. In 2015, emissions were on their way up. We campaigned on a commitment to reverse that trend, lower our emissions and be a leader in fighting climate change around the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, ran on a commitment to do nothing on the environment. They do absolutely nothing on the environment. Their party's official statement on climate change is that there is no human cause for inflation. It requires us to look in the mirror and ask what our plan is.
For two and a half years, Conservatives have said they would like to axe the tax. They have made bumper stickers and hoodies. It is their brand now: Axe the tax. Political maturity requires them to come up with an idea or a plan to replace it with something. If they want to axe the tax, then what are they going to replace it with? I would ask Conservatives what their plan is to tackle climate change.
1822 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:02:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it does feel as though the Conservatives do not have any plan to address the climate crisis. They cannot even really admit that there is a climate crisis.
However, the Liberals have failed to communicate what their silver bullet solution is for carbon pricing. To double the rebate right now for rural Canadians and try to gain back some ground, they will be increasing the carbon price on small businesses. The Liberals already owe small businesses and indigenous groups $3.6 billion.
Why would the Liberals not make big oil pay what it owes by implementing an excess profits tax? We just saw polling that says the majority of Canadians wants an excess profits tax on big oil and gas. Why will the Liberals not do it?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:34:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, because I am in the House for this debate, I will not be able to attend Mr. Mulroney's funeral, so I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the family and my deep respect for Mr. Mulroney, who was a Progressive Conservative and who believed in the market. He knew that incentives could change behaviour. That is why, when it came to acid rain, Mr. Mulroney was very proud of the Montreal Protocol, which introduced an emissions trading mechanism.
Earlier, a Conservative member yelled out that it was not a carbon tax. It is a pricing mechanism. These two mechanisms have their pros and cons, but they are market-based.
The Conservatives no longer believe in the market. They believe in using public money and giving that money to companies they are friends with. If that is what the Conservative Party is like, I think many people who voted for them in the past are going to have second thoughts.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:38:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who just spoke. I dream of having that kind of presence and the skill to deliver that kind of speech.
What I want to do is present the facts that were recently reported by Radio-Canada about the whole carbon tax issue. I think it is extremely relevant to today's debate.
As my colleague said, today's fairly concise Conservative Party motion is based on the results of a survey of Canadians. The motion reads as follows:
That, given that 70% of provinces and 70% of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax hike on April 1, the House call on the NDP-Liberal coalition to immediately cancel this hike.
The Conservative Party claims that 70% of Canadians are against this carbon tax hike, so I took a look at the survey to see if that is actually true. I discovered that the poll was about the government's measure to exempt home heating oil from the carbon pricing act, not about the existence of the act itself.
The Conservative Party therefore chose to put their spin on the numbers, perhaps because “Axe the tax” makes a good slogan. However, it is not really true that 70% of Canadians are against the 23% increase that will take effect on April 1, because this increase will be gradual. It is true that, at some point, the carbon tax will reach a certain amount, but these amounts will be spread over several years, until 2030. What they are claiming here is a bit of a stretch. As my colleague who spoke before me was saying, this is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is against the Conservatives’ motion.
I looked for other figures. It is funny, because I found the same numbers, that is, 70% and 23%, but they refer to something completely different. I found out that 70% of the global GDP has a carbon price. More than 48 countries around the globe have a carbon tax or a cap and trade system. It is now standard in most industrialized countries to put a price on pollution, and that is what Canada did a few years ago.
The 23% is simple enough. According to the same study, 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions are covered by a price on pollution. I thought it was funny to find these same numbers but then realizing they mean different things. Obviously, I did not pull these figures out of a hat; they were published by France’s ministry of energy transition. It is interesting to see what other countries are doing instead of complaining of what we have at home.
The Conservative motion asks that “the House call on the NDP-Liberal coalition to immediately cancel this hike.” That is interesting because it is the first time the coalition is being called “la coalition entre les libéraux et les néo-démocrates” in French. Normally, the Conservatives use different formulations when they talk about the coalition. In English, they say that it is the NDP-Liberal coalition, or a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, but when they are talking to Quebeckers in French, they say that it is a coalition between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals. Unfortunately for them, the motion does not include this nuance. It mentions only a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP.
Let us get back to the famous carbon tax hike. It will indeed reach $170 by 2030. For now, it is set at $65 per tonne. Unlike what the Conservative Party would have us believe, it is not the Bloc Québécois that says we must increase the price on carbon pollution to help Canada achieve its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO. The Office of the PBO is a well-respected institution. I think that the Conservative Party should believe the figures published by the PBO. Not so very long ago, he said that, to achieve the Paris Agreement targets by 2030, we would have to increase the price on carbon to $239 per tonne. The carbon tax is a tool Canada uses to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and this tool should benefit people who are a bit more economically conservative. It is therefore a little hard to understand why the Conservatives are so against the price on pollution.
Radio-Canada’s Fannie Olivier published an analysis a few days ago entitled “À quoi ressemblerait un Canada sans prix sur le carbone?” or what would Canada be like without carbon pricing?
The Conservative Party is threatening to axe the tax as soon as it comes to power.
Let us go back to 2016 when the Prime Minister took advantage of a debate on the ratification of the Paris Agreement to announce a price on carbon. He told the provinces that they would have to comply. He gave them two years to do so. Then, he would start imposing a tax of $10 per tonne that would gradually increase. Obviously, a few provincial environment ministers did not take that very well. In Quebec, we were not concerned, because we already had a cap and trade system in place with California that has been working perfectly well since 2013. Therefore, this carbon pricing has no impact in Quebec. My colleague explained that. The carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, despite what some may think, because, unfortunately, people have been spreading misinformation. Some provinces even challenged the tax before the Supreme Court, but they were unsuccessful. There is a real power struggle with the provinces.
It must be said that the Liberal government, as I mentioned earlier, has not done a very good job of explaining this environmental measure. It recently created a loophole in its own legislation by introducing a three-year exemption for heating oil with the aim of quelling discontent in the Atlantic provinces. That did nothing to help its popularity ratings, unfortunately.
What would happen if we woke up tomorrow and there was no longer a carbon tax in Canada? Sébastien Jodoin, a professor in the faculty of law at McGill University, says that there would be significant consequences, starting with the hit on the pockets of many Canadians. That is interesting. Conservatives often tell us that people have no money, that they are poor, that the carbon tax is making those who are poor even poorer. However, we know that 80% of Canadians who pay the tax receive a refund from the federal government that exceeds what they pay. Should carbon pricing be abolished, they would have less money in their pockets. I find that interesting.
Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Chair in Energy Sector Management at HEC Montréal, says that “the great irony is that the majority of Canadians in provinces that pay the federal tax, earn money from it. Abolishing it would impoverish Canadians.” That is interesting. Unfortunately that is not a speech we hear often from the Conservative Party. Obviously, removing it would also have an impact on greenhouse gases. The government is trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions with this measure. Getting rid of it would have consequences in the short, medium and long terms.
The carbon tax currently being used by the Government of Canada seeks to reduce one-third of the emissions in the country by 2030. It must be said that the way things are going, we are nowhere close to meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. I would even go so far as to say that we need other measures, starting with the money that is given to the oil and gas companies. These companies make billions of dollars in profits every year and the government keeps taking taxpayer money and giving it to those people. I think we could take that money and help people cope with the cost of living. We could invest in green energy, such as wind, solar and hydroelectricity in Quebec. We need investment in these economic sectors that are good for the planet. We need to find other ways. If the Conservative Party wants to abolish carbon pricing, then it needs to come up with other, meaningful ways to fight climate change.
I want to come back to the fact that 23% of global emissions are now covered by a carbon pricing or emissions trading system. That statistic is also from the World Bank. In her article, Fannie Olivier said that the number of countries that have such a tax has significantly increased in recent years. We are talking about nearly fifty countries or states that have made the leap. Take, for example, Vietnam, or even Turkey. Doing away with the tax on carbon would really go against what is being done internationally.
I still have a lot more I would like to say, but I see that my time is up, so I will stop there.
1525 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:04:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly start with heat pumps, because that is what the member also started with. The greener homes program was riddled with problems. So many middle-income Canadians could not navigate the system and could not afford to pay the money up front. Low-income Canadians were excluded altogether. That is why New Democrats forced the government, through our supply and confidence agreement, to include a commitment to provide energy efficiency to low-income Canadians. We are going to keep pushing the government. It is unfortunate that it cancelled that program and has not provided a plan to replace it, a meaningful plan to help low-income and middle-income Canadians heat their homes efficiently.
On disinformation, it has been beyond disheartening and atrocious to see Conservatives tour around Canada, not only making up facts or maybe generously telling fiction to Canadians about how carbon pricing works, but also going to my home province of British Columbia and pretending that there is a federal carbon tax there. We just heard similarly from my Bloc colleagues. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is in Quebec saying that he will axe the tax. It is a disservice to our democracy and Canadians. Canadians deserve better.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:26:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member has spoken a lot about the disinformation that the Conservatives have been spreading, and I agree, but the Conservative member asked him a very fair question about small businesses.
We know that the federal government currently owes small businesses and indigenous groups $3.6 billion. Those are rebates that the government has promised small businesses, and they are still waiting. The government has also said it is going to give small businesses less because it has doubled the rebates for rural Canadians. Why would it make small businesses pay for that when we could be making big oil and gas pay for it? The output-based pricing system is unfair. Suncor pays 14 times less than an average Canadian does in carbon pricing. Why not make big oil pay what it owes?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:28:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after eight years of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition and under the Prime Minister, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have seen their cost of living go right through the roof.
Now, the carbon cult plan is to raise the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. It is yet another in a long line of cruel April Fool's Day jokes that we are going to encounter until 2030, when the price on carbon reaches 61¢ a litre.
On Saturday, the Voice of the Common Man, known as VOCM to most people, had a poll. It showed that 90% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are against the April 1 increase in carbon tax of 23%. I guess people might wonder why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are so against the costly coalition's increase in carbon tax. It is simply because Newfoundland and Labrador's geographical area is very remote. Everything comes to Newfoundland by the use of fuel. Whether it is food, building supplies or even fuel, it arrives by fuel.
The fishing industry takes quite the hit, whether in terms of the processors that use fuel to cook the crab, the trucking companies that truck it or the fishermen who drive around and move their supplies. The carbon tax has quite the impact. It impacts the price the fishermen receive.
It impacts the mining industry. There is a mine in my riding that shut down, and one of the main reasons was the high cost of fuel.
It has a massive impact on the forestry industry and the tourism industry. People cannot afford to travel to Newfoundland and Labrador anymore.
The Speaker is very aware of how much it costs to get to Newfoundland and Labrador, as I know she has family connections in one of the great communities in my riding, Belleoram. The Speaker is well aware of the crippling effect of high fuel costs.
If it costs more for fishermen to harvest the fish or processors to process it, or for farmers to grow vegetables and wheat, or whatnot, and for truckers to truck those products to the grocery stores, which are paying more in energy bills, at the end of the day the consumer foots the bill.
Seventy per cent of Canadians are against this 23% increase in carbon tax, and seven Canadian premiers have come out against it. This includes the great supporter and childhood friend of the Prime Minister, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland, Andrew Furey, who just sent a letter to the Prime Minister, pleading with him to pause the increase. He said, “I respectfully request that you consider pausing the implementation of the April 1st carbon tax increase”.
We will see if he listens. All along, Premier Furey supported the carbon tax, but now he sees the light. Yet his good friend, the Prime Minister, consistently breaks the promise he made to Canadians to hold carbon pricing at $50 per tonne. The new goal, of course, is $170 a tonne.
Then there is the constant bragging that carbon tax is revenue-neutral. It is not. People do not have to take my word for it: The independent watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, says that Canadians will pay more in carbon tax than they receive in rebates. At the same time, the Liberal-NDP coalition has not met one single solitary climate change target, and it will not.
The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl continues to talk about the cold hard cash that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to find in their pockets. Increases such as the one coming on April 1, which lead to a total increase by 2030 of 61¢ a litre, are not putting cold hard cash in anybody's pockets. I will tell the House what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are finding cold: the temperatures in their homes. They cannot afford to heat them. That is where we will find the cold.
Last week, Liberal Premier Furey said, “The issue for this particular tax is there are limited options to change right now in Newfoundland and Labrador.... In the absence of the ability to change, what does the tax really accomplish?”
Hiking the carbon tax will accomplish more of the same, more of nothing. Our common-sense Conservative leader and I toured Newfoundland and Labrador over the last year. We were in Labrador. We were in St. John's East. We were in St. John's South—Mount Pearl. We were in Avalon and Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, my great riding of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and Long Range Mountains. We heard the message loud and clear that life is simply unaffordable these days.
On a recent visit to the Community Food Sharing Association in St. John's last week, we were shown quite a disturbing picture. Their demand has risen by over 40% in the last three or four years. They are now having to try to save food banks that are about to close their doors because they cannot find the resources to supply the needs of the public. We heard the struggles. We heard the pleas, such as those we heard from the food bank.
If the six NDP-Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador are hearing the same pleas, which I am sure they are, we really hope they listen to the requests of the people who elected them, the people who sent them here. They sent them here to be their voice in this place. They come a long way every week. I am looking over at my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. I travel on a plane with him quite a bit. He comes a long way from out where he lives. It is quite the trek. He is bringing those concerns from all the way out there in Bonavista—Burin—Trinity to the House. I am sure that the folks out in Clarenville, and New-Wes-Valley and places like that are hoping that he remembers the pain that the hike in this carbon tax is going to bring to those folks on April 1 and beyond, as it continues on into 2030. I hope that my hon. colleague and, along with him, his five NDP-Liberal colleagues support our motion to stop the hike in the carbon tax when the vote comes up later this week.
There is hope, because if the six NDP-Liberal members from Newfoundland and Labrador continue to neglect their constituents, there is going to be a price to be paid. These are the people who elected them to come here, to represent them and to be their voice in Ottawa. If they continue to not speak as their voice and vote against Conservative motions, such the one before the House to spike the hike, the price to be paid is not going to be a price on pollution. It is going to be a price on NDP-Liberal seats in this place. We plead with them, as their constituents do, to vote with Conservatives, spike the hike and heed our plea.
Common-sense Conservatives, very shortly, will axe the tax, build the homes, stop the crime and balance the budget.
1219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 2:17:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is exciting news that tax season is here.
When Canadians file their taxes, they will receive the Canada carbon rebate. In the provinces where it applies, such as my home province of Ontario, the Canada carbon rebate will put even more money back in the pockets of most Canadians than they pay into the carbon pricing system.
Affordability is top of mind in everything our federal government does. With the Canada carbon rebate, we are directly putting money into the bank accounts of Canadian families. Families are counting on these cheques, especially low- and middle-income Canadians, who need it the most.
Unfortunately, Conservative MPs want to cut these rebates, which low- and middle-income Canadians rely on, but we will not let them. Canadian families can count on that.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 2:57:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, “the survival of our planet is at stake. I cannot ignore this urgent climate challenge and continue to look my two sons in the eyes.” Those are the words of Premier Legault. He is proud that Quebec has its own carbon pricing system. Quebeckers are proud of that. The Conservatives want to eliminate it. We will not let them do that.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:00:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of people watching at home who just cannot get over the fact that the disinformation coming from the Conservative side is now limitless. The member who just asked a question voted in favour of carbon pricing in Quebec. She voted to fight climate change. She was part of a government that was a North American leader in the fight against climate change, and now, under pressure from her climate-change-denying leader, she is turning her back on all her principles. That is unacceptable.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Kings—Hants.
It is my absolute pleasure, as always, to be speaking on behalf of the residents in my riding of Davenport. I will be speaking to today's opposition day motion that was put forward by the Conservatives on affordability and pollution pricing. I will start with a few of my own comments and then I will go into a bit of prepared text.
As members know, climate change is real. Carbon emissions are impacting our climate and causing the climate to change. If Canada does not continue to rapidly move toward reducing emissions now, the cost of waiting will be more expensive for Canadians later. As a result, it will be a world that will be more difficult and more unpredictable to live in.
Last week, I happened to have been blessed to have the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in my riding, and the question of the carbon tax came up by a Davenport resident, who said that given the fact that Canadians were suffering an affordability crisis and as of April 1 the price on pollution would go up, should people believe the Leader of the Opposition who was trying to convince a lot of Canadians that the price on pollution was a tax that would hurt Canadians?
The minister responded by saying that there were the facts and then there was perception, that putting a price on pollution would be the most economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions and that if people asked 100 economists, 99 and a half of them would tell them that it was true. He went on to say that the way in which we had structured it was to do it in a way that would make it affordable for Canadians. Therefore, eight out of 10 Canadian families would get more money back than they paid, and it worked directly disproportionate to income. Those who lived on the most modest means would get much more money back than they actually paid. The people who received less money back than they paid were people who lived in 6,000 square foot houses, had a Hummer in their driveway and a boat in the backyard. At the end of the day, the fact that they paid more was because they were polluting more.
It was also noted that the Premier of Saskatchewan had decided that he would stop remitting the price on pollution for home heating. As a direct result of that, the rebate would go down for people in Saskatchewan, and the people who would suffer most would be the those people who were living on modest incomes. The premier was making poor people poorer because of the choices that he was making.
The motion before us is also proposing to do that for Canadians.
In 2023, we saw a record fire season in Canada in which the area burned was more than double that of the historic record, with hundreds of thousands of Canadians evacuated from their homes as a result. The total area burned exceeded 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years.
In its 2020 report on climate risks and their implications for the insurance industry in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada also concluded that “The average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1-billion a year to $5-billion a year, and must be accompanied by an increase in premium income.” It is clear that there are very real costs associated with having one's house burn down or having to flee one's home and job due to an evacuation order.
We also know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages reductions across the economy, while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. It creates incentives for Canadian business to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services, and when it is done right, and we are doing that in Canada, it is both effective and affordable for Canadians.
On the Canada carbon rebate, the bulk of the proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system goes straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 households in these provinces continuing to get more money back through their quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system.
The federal government understands that we need to maintain the price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down, but at the same time we have also shown that we are willing to be flexible and innovative in supporting options that will go even further to cut down on climate pollution in the long run.
We took temporary and targeted action to pause the fuel charge on heating oil with the goal of getting consumers off home heating oil and onto a cleaner and far more affordable alternative solution that will save them thousands of dollars and lower carbon emissions over the long run.
Measures such as this will make life more affordable in the right way, while supporting the goal of achieving a prosperous, low-carbon future for all Canadians.
We know that there are better ways to make life more affordable for Canadians, ways that do not involve destroying the environment and incurring more devastating costs further down the road. We are delivering this support where it is most effective, including with the oil to heat pump affordability program, which will increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000. It includes proposing, under Bill C-59, a doubling of the Canada carbon rebate rural top-up rate, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the base rebate amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families that are dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city. We have been very clear that we will continue to implement our pollution pricing system while ensuring that we continue to put more money into the pockets of Canadian households and families.
More recently, through Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023, we introduced measures to advance the government’s fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It introduces measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada’s competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government’s broader plan to work with industry towards the goal of decarbonization. This includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit, which is also known as CCUS.
CCUS is a suite of technologies that capture carbon dioxide emissions, whether from fuel combustion, from industrial processes or directly from the air, either to store CO2, typically deep underground, or to use it in other industrial processes, such as mineralization in concrete. These technologies are an important tool for reducing emissions in high-emitting sectors, where other pathways to reduce emissions may be limited or unavailable. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency each include CCUS deployment as an important element of scenarios in which the world achieves net-zero emissions. For its part, the CCUS investment tax credit will not only help Canadian companies adopt clean technologies but will also create jobs, ensure Canadian businesses remain globally competitive and reduce Canada’s emissions at the same time.
In conclusion, making life more affordable for Canadians while protecting the environment has always been a priority for the federal Liberal government, and it remains a priority today. I have outlined over the last 10 minutes just a few examples of how we are making targeted and responsible investments to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family. Making life more affordable is a key part of that.
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on this opposition day motion about affordability and pollution pricing.
I am now very happy to take any questions.
1503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:46:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will respond in English. I would try in French, but that was a nuanced question.
The hon. member hits it right on the head. If we were to cut the price signal altogether, it actually would hurt industry in Quebec. I guess the position of the Conservative Party is to hurt innovation in Quebec and to hurt lower-income families if the federal backstop was in place, but it is not because the Quebec government actually believes in moving on climate change. They are trying to suggest that this price signal is not good for innovation in this country, and it is not good to be able to meet our targets internationally.
I do not know what the position is. I cannot speak for the Conservatives, but the way they villainize the carbon pricing policy and suggest that it is all that ails people in society is short-term thinking. It is not nuanced, and if they do not like the federal backstop, they should be proposing and pitching other types of credible environmental plans, which I have yet to see.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:50:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is lots of talk about carbon pricing, but the reality is that many other parts of the government's so-called climate plan are not measuring up to the commitment we need in order to meet Canada's targets.
One of those areas is the greener homes program, which the current government has essentially run out of money for, leaving a whole bunch of homeowners, and professionals who have taken special training to do home energy assessments, high and dry. It still has not announced what its new program is going to look like, and a lot of folks are wondering when that news is going to come.
Perhaps my colleague can tell us on what date energy auditors and assessors, and homeowners who want to apply for this financial support, are going to know what the new program looks like.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 4:34:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier today my colleague, the member for Victoria, asked similar questions and did not receive a good response, so I will ask this member. In terms of output-based pricing, New Democrats do not believe it is fair. We do believe in carbon pricing. However, Suncor pays 14 times less than an average Canadian in carbon pricing.
Why will the government not make big oil companies pay what they owe and pay their fair share?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 4:35:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I work with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe on the parliamentary association for the Ahmadiyya community. She is one of the co-chairs.
I would like to say that all Canadians and all Canadian companies need to pay their fair share in this transition to a green and greening economy, as I like to refer to it. With regard to our carbon pricing system, for individuals we know that out of eight out of 10 Canadians, and eight in 10 Canadian families even more so, are made better off with this system. We know that better is always possible, of course.
With regard to industries and so forth, there are about 800,000 Canadians who work in the energy sector from coast to coast to coast. They are hard-working and we will support them in this transition, but we know we will need to utilize those resources in this transition as we move forward. I look forward to having these continuing conversations with the hon. member and with all colleagues on how we continue to grow a strong economy and continue to have a healthy environment and a bright future for all Canadians, particularly our children.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
