44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 19, 2024 10:00AM
- Mar/19/24 10:16:00 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost. While the Prime Minister wants to drive up the cost of literally everything, common-sense Conservatives are focused on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime.
Today, we are going to focus on that first piece of it because, on April 1, the Prime Minister has a cruel April Fool's Day joke planned for Canadians. As if prices were not high enough already, the out-of-touch Prime Minister is going to raise the carbon tax by a staggering 23% in just a couple of weeks.
I know that I speak on behalf of all my Conservative colleagues when I say that we sympathize with the struggles hard-working Canadians are going through. We see it in our ridings. I have been in grocery stores where well-dressed people who look like they have jobs and have means go through the meat aisle, pick up a package of beef, stare agonizingly at it, and then put it back when they realize they just cannot afford it. That is what life is like after eight years of this Liberal government.
On April 1, those prices are going to go up, yet again. Common-sense Conservatives are fighting all week to spike the hike and to convince the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition partners to, at the very least, not raise it any more. The first thing we can do to help Canadians is to hold the line on this punitive tax and to not make it any worse.
I will deal with some myth-busting of the carbon tax. Do members remember when the Prime Minister promised that the carbon tax would do a few things? First of all, he said that it would be revenue neutral, that it would help Canada reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and that Canadians would be better off with it because of a rebate scheme he had developed.
At this point, I will remind the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Those are the three pillars that the Prime Minister built his carbon tax on: revenue neutral, reduce emissions and help Canada reach its targets, and he would give out more than he would take in from Canadians. Let us bust all three of those myths.
First of all, it is not revenue neutral. The government keeps a sizable percentage of the carbon tax. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, estimates that the carbon tax alone costs small business $2.5 billion, which is $2.5 billion sucked right out of the economy, and those costs that those businesses have to pay gets passed on to consumers. The government keeps far more of what it collects than it gives out with the carbon tax. That myth is completely busted. That pillar has been completely demolished.
On emissions reductions, let us take a look at what experts say about the Liberal government's plan. It has not helped it hit a single emissions target. The Climate Change Performance Index ranks Canada 62 out of 67 spots. Canada has actually fallen several spots on that ranking under the Liberal government, after eight years of the Prime Minister. Canada now ranks behind countries like Kazakhstan, Algeria and Belarus. Those countries are doing better than Canada under this government. The environment commissioner said that this government was stacking failures on top of failures; that is the environment commissioner the Prime Minister appointed. His own environment watchdog has concluded that this government is stacking failure after failure. It is clearly not an environment plan; it is a tax plan.
Let us take a look at the impact it has on families, which is the third myth that somehow Canadians would be better off if they paid this tax. That has been completely shattered. We know that it adds to the cost of fuel, heating and groceries. Let us take a look at some specifics.
Starting April 1, the carbon tax will add 17¢ to every litre of gasoline and 21¢ to every litre of diesel. We are looking at staggering costs that Canadians just cannot afford. The food experts, the people who monitor the grocery industry and the price of groceries in the aisles, are saying that Canadians are going to have to pay an extra $700 in grocery prices this year, before the carbon tax hike is even factored in.
If we factor in all of the secondary costs, we can see the ridiculous rebate ruse that the Liberals are trying to sell Canadians. Somehow, magically, if people pay these higher carbon tax costs, the government will take the money, will swoosh it around in Ottawa, and then will spit it back out in various parts at various times, and somehow, Canadians will be better off. The only problem is that once one takes a look at that scheme, it falls apart almost instantly.
What the Liberals did was something very tricky. It was very clever, but very tricky. They designed the carbon tax rebate to only capture the direct costs, which is only what someone sees as the carbon tax on a bill, whether it is filling up one's car with gas or paying one's home heating bill. One will only see that line item cost. That is the only thing that the rebate scheme factors in. However, what it does not factor in is how all those costs in the economy get passed on to consumers. We pay that higher carbon tax every time we buy something that had to be grown or manufactured, that had to be transported, that had to be cooled or refrigerated or that had to be warmed or heated. Any time a retailer has to pay the carbon tax on their heating bills or on their utility bills, all of that gets cascaded on, and consumers and Canadians pay for that.
The rebate scheme captures absolutely none of that, but do not take my word for it. I know many Canadians might say that the Liberals have a tale to tell and that the Conservatives have their perspectives. Let us look at what independent experts say about this part of the carbon tax plan.
The Prime Minister's own budget watchdog, the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer, did this analysis and went through all of the numbers. He broke Canadian families into various groups that he calls quintiles. Basically, he took all Canadian wage earners and divided them up into different groups based on their income levels. This is based on income earners who are the middle group; these are middle-class Canadians who are average, middle-income earners. In Alberta, they would be $1,400 worse off, and in Saskatchewan, they would be $929 worse off once the carbon tax is fully implemented. In Manitoba, they would be $1,000 worse off. In Ontario, they would be $1,200 worse off. Nova Scotians would be $1,100 worse off. Prince Edward Islanders would be another $1,100 worse off. For the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, they would $680 worse off, even after the rebate scheme. We are talking about average middle-class Canadians.
If we look at one income bracket just below that group, they are still worse off too. They are not better off. These families are still paying more in the rebate, but that middle group is significant. That is almost $100 a month that Canadian families just simply cannot afford. They cannot afford groceries, cannot afford to keep the heat on and cannot afford to pay higher costs through the carbon tax. Again, these are the independent analyses of the Prime Minister's own budget watchdog.
The final point I will make is the role the carbon tax plays in inflation. The government tries to say that the carbon tax is not a significant driver of inflation. Let us look at what the Bank of Canada governor himself said. I am just going to quote very briefly from committee evidence, and then I will yield the floor.
Mr. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, told the committee that eliminating the carbon tax would drop inflation by 0.6 percentage points. My colleague from Northumberland asked him to clarify because 0.6% might not sound like a lot. However, when inflation is at 3.8%, with the target of 2%, and if the Bank of Canada can start cutting interest rates once inflation gets closer to the target, that means 0.6% is about a third of the 1.8% that Canada has to eliminate in inflation to get back down to the target so that interest rates can come down. In other words, the carbon tax is responsible for about a third of the extra inflation that is plaguing Canadians and is forcing the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates high. If the government eliminated the carbon tax, it would be one-third of the way to getting inflation back down to the target, which means interest rates and prices can come down.
This week, Conservatives are going to stand with the 70% of Canadians who oppose this carbon tax hike and the 70% of premiers who oppose the carbon tax hike. We are going to fight to spike the hike so we can axe the tax.
1629 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 10:30:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the one area where I agree with the Conservatives is that the carbon tax has not brought down emissions, and it has not brought down emissions because the Liberals believe that the tar sands companies would do the right thing. We had Pathways Alliance and the net-zero plan. We have seen carbon emission decreases across the board, except in big oil where it increases.
As for the carbon tax, Suncor, which was one of the companies that made $78 billion in profits last year, pays one-fourteenth of the carbon tax that “Joe who fills up his gas tank” has to pay. We gave these companies free money, and we continue to give them free money. They are burning our planet and have no intention of doing the right thing. The Liberals were suckers for believing that Rich Kruger, Suncor, Imperial and the rest of the tar sands companies actually cared about burning the planet. I am sorry. I will retract that because we know the Conservatives do not care about burning the planet either.
180 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 11:00:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in the member's statement. However, I will address something that he said. In 2019, that member ran on a commitment, with Erin O'Toole, to price carbon. He went door to door.
An hon. member: That was not in 2019.
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, it was in 2021. I am sorry. I get confused because, in 2019, none of them even mentioned climate change as the failed leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, ran on a commitment to ignore climate change. The Conservatives realized that was a failed opportunity, and Erin O'Toole recognized that, if one would like to be the prime minister of this country, they needed to have a plan to lower our emissions and fight climate change.
Clearly the member opposite has amnesia, or he has chosen to go back on his commitment to price carbon. I have a question for him. The amount his family will be receiving in the Canada carbon rebate is $1,504. That addresses affordability challenges for members of his community. It is also an incentive to lower our emissions.
I hope that the member will join me in making sure his community is aware of that $1,504—
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:02:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I always say it is refreshing when I have the opportunity to discuss how we fight climate change with the member for Victoria.
Instead of having to listen to Conservatives deny the existence of climate change and deny our leadership opportunity in lowering our emissions and fighting climate change, we get a refreshing opportunity with the New Democrats to discuss how we fight climate change.
I agree with the member. The excess profits of the oil and gas industry are absolutely obscene. Not only that, but what they have done with the oil sands is an environmental disaster. I had the chance to visit Fort McMurray, and we have also heard testimony in the environment committee about the poisoning of the Kearl site through tailings ponds leakages.
There needs to be more accountability from the oil and gas sector. It needs to pay for the mess it has made. We need to ensure that accountability and integrity are there throughout every aspect of our economy.
Once again, I will say that it is refreshing to talk about how we will fight climate change in the House, not if we will fight climate change, which is always the case with the Conservatives.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:03:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something that was brought up by my colleague here on this side of the House, which was that the Prime Minister said the carbon tax would not be increased past $50 a tonne.
I recently read Jody Wilson-Raybould's book, in which she said that she had realized that the Liberals will say whatever they have to say to get elected. It is obvious that this is just another broken promise from them.
The member for Milton talked about emitting emissions. I have a very basic question. Does he believe that families that are heating their homes, putting fuel in their gas tanks to take their kids to hockey or to get to work, or feeding their families, are emitting emissions?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:04:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a reality in Canada that we live in a cold country in the winter, but it gets pretty warm in the summer. A lot of our goods come from far away, and that requires a lot of transportation costs. Canadians have a carbon footprint.
There is a way we could increase that carbon footprint. We could ignore climate change and say to heck with it, we are just going to let carbon emissions fly and that we do not care about climate change.
However, there is an alternative. We could consider a heat pump. We could consider more fuel-efficient vehicles. We could consider more locally grown produce and meat. These are ways to lower our carbon footprint. We are supporting Canadians through those choices.
In Saskatchewan, where my colleague is from, there is a $1,504 rebate.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:11:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I expect a little better from the member in the seriousness of this debate. I know he believes passionately about this.
Speaking about farmers back home, just a couple of years ago we saw a 25% loss of vines in the grape industry in Niagara. We are seeing catastrophic losses in British Columbia. I know that some members represent those farmers. Again, as I said, there have been historic fires and floods. Those costs are borne by Canadians, and what do Conservatives have to say to those Canadians? They have no plan. There is nothing on the table, and those costs will continue to increase. People may not be able to get insurance. That is a reality as one's insurance costs will go up, but that is ignored.
It is funny. The first time I heard a Conservative politician even mention a rebate was when the premier of the government in Saskatchewan was trying to reassure Saskatchewan residents that they should not worry as they would still get their rebates, and that is because Canadians look forward to seeing that. Conservatives ignore that whole aspect of it. They do not address it, and they make up numbers on the cost of the price on pollution, even though they know full well that Canadians, especially lower-income Canadians, are much better off.
By cutting the price on pollution, the biggest recipient would be the oil companies, and they would not pass that along. As we have now seen, oil companies are having record profits. It is a commodity-based industry. They are not going to pass that profit onto us. This is about the Conservatives standing up for big oil, which is truly unfortunate.
I believe some of them do understand that there is a climate crisis before us, but why is there no plan? All of them ran on pricing pollution. A couple of years ago it was fine for them to go door to door to say that they were going to price pollution. It was not a plan that I particularly agreed with, but it was nice that every party in this country, including every member sitting here, ran on pricing pollution, knowing we need an environmental plan.
This evening there will be tributes to the late prime minister Brian Mulroney. In all of the speeches yesterday, there was talk of him being a great statesman. We are lucky as Canadians to have had him at the helm to work with the United States and other countries to get things done, whether that was for apartheid or environmental issues. One of those issues was pricing pollution. I think we can all remember the scourge of acid rain, what it was doing, the concerns Canadians had and the way to fix it.
An hon. member: It was not a carbon tax.
Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member heckled me that it is not a carbon tax.
The way to fix it was to price pollution, to price the thing one did not want so one has less of it. This is cognitive dissonance. They cannot get it through their heads that this works. They can yell and try to shout me down, but it worked. Former prime minister Mulroney worked with his counterparts in the United States. They are laughing, which is unbelievably shocking.
However, it worked. They worked with premiers across parties. They worked with the Liberal premier in Ontario. They worked with the president of the United States. They worked across the world to get a price on pollution so that they could eliminate the scourge of acid ran. We saw that it is not an issue. Canada can be a leader, which we choose to be, or we can go the Conservative way and just deny this incredible threat that is facing us.
In 2015, Canada was on track for our emissions to grow to 815 megatonnes by 2030. Conservatives had no climate plan. It was free to pollute, and oil and gas companies were allowed to emit unlimited pollution.
Our latest update projects that our emissions will be 467 megatonnes in 2030, which is 43% below where they should be. I would have thought that in this place we could all agree that we do not like pollution. I would have thought that this would be a consensus we could all come to. Unfortunately, it is not. As a result of our work, our emissions have declined by 7% since 2015 for the first time ever and we are on track to meet our climate targets.
I occasionally speak of them as my two favourite constituents, Hannah and Ethan, who are my son and daughter. They are seven and five years old. I am disappointed that we do not have conversations about what the future will look like for them in 2030 or 2050. We look at a party that only wants there to be profits for oil companies right now. I am hoping that for the rest of day we can have that debate.
845 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:20:17 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who worked to implement the carbon tax, spoke to the media yesterday.
She said that the Liberal government had done a poor job of selling its own environmental and economic measure and that it was a shame the Conservatives had completely taken control of the narrative. She wondered how this could have happened.
According to her, the Minister of Finance apparently was not too keen on the idea of environmental measures and was more on the side of the oil companies. This is information that was recently revealed by the media.
Can my colleague tell me when the Liberals are finally going to take back control of the narrative and defend the measure they put in place, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Incidentally, this measure is not going to do the job on its own. The government should put other measures in place so that we can meet our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:22:17 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we lived through the dismal decade of the Harper years, when Canada was the fourth-worst country in the world with respect to emissions around climate change. We saw the doubling of housing prices under the Conservatives. We saw the doubling of food bank line-ups under the Conservatives. We saw people forced to work longer and longer as the retirement age of seniors was scrapped. It was terrible.
My question for the Liberals this. Why have they continued so many of the same practices? The massive handouts to oil and gas CEOs have continued under the Liberals. Yes, they have moved up from the absolutely deplorable record of the climate-denying Conservatives, but only a few spots.
The reality is that the Liberals should be putting in place things that the NDP have been pushing in the House of Commons as the adults in the House, such as ensuring that we actually have an excess profits tax, that we end oil and gas subsidies and that we actually invest in clean energy.
Why are the Liberals not doing the things that they know they have to do, if we are really to beat this battle against climate change?
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:23:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, with whom I will be sharing my time, I find the motion a bit odd. It is based on a survey, not facts. It is a motion that misleads Quebeckers and Canadians. It says the carbon tax increase planned for April 1 will take place immediately when it is in fact staggered until 2030 or 2031.
To be clear, it is not our job to tell the opposition parties what to do with their opposition days, but the Conservatives are obsessed with the carbon tax. They cannot sleep at night, and have no other content, so this is their focus. It is their choice. Nonetheless, their motion could at least contain facts. That would be a good start.
It is not a motion based on science. The Conservative Party could have talked about global warming and offered alternative solutions, but it did not. Nor is it a motion based on respect for Quebec, since nowhere does it mention that the federal carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. I will therefore repeat so it is clear for the Conservatives: the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, either directly or indirectly, through regulation or through the back door. Lastly, this motion is not even about sound management of public funds, since it does not address the $83 billion the government has earmarked for oil subsidies.
Yesterday, in the rather embarrassing speech given by the Leader of the Opposition in honour of Mr. Mulroney, it was stated that Mr. Mulroney reduced the size of government. The Conservatives could have tabled a motion to cut the size of government by $83 billion, but they did not, because they are oil Marxist-Leninists. The motion tabled for consideration was written and proposed by someone incompetent who would be fired from any workplace where facts, knowledge and rigour are required. We can draw our own conclusions.
Now, I would like to take advantage of this lull to thank the member from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I feel this is the right time. Under the Charest government—because, as we know, she is a Liberal—she was part of the cabinet that brought in the array of decrees that introduced the Quebec emissions trading system. Because of the now-Conservative member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, whom I thank from the bottom of my heart, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.
It does not apply directly. It does not apply either by law or under the clean fuel regulations, which the Conservatives have dubbed the second carbon tax in an attempt to mislead Quebeckers. We have more stringent legislation, and our businesses know that we will continue to be consistent, that we will apply it. Our businesses have already started complying, and it is working.
The Conservatives' latest assertion to dupe Quebeckers is that it applies to Quebec through the back door. Listening to them, it is as though this glass of water in front of me is made of propane and that lemons are made of Alberta diesel. They claim everything we buy is made in Alberta.
We even hit a world record recently. As we know, there is parliamentary work to be done here. The work of Parliament must be taken seriously. Yesterday, in committee meetings, where we are supposed to work on important issues for Quebeckers and Canadians, the Conservatives paralyzed proceedings with motions on the carbon tax, suggesting that it applies to Quebec. In the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, they moved motions regarding the carbon tax as it relates to immigrants, when it does not apply in Quebec and they are not even in Canada. That is what the Conservatives have come to—
645 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:28:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, they were moved, actually. They may not have been debated, but they were moved.
I am going to say something that will please the member from Calgary even more, since he likes this sort of thing. The Conservatives moved a motion on the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I just want everyone to think about that for a moment. Let that sink in. The Conservatives moved a motion on the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
However, that is nothing. Yesterday, they debated motions on the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and the member for South Shore—St. Margarets asked telecom CEOs what effect the carbon tax would have on cellphone bills. The CEOs of the biggest companies looked at him like he came from another galaxy. They told them that it had no effect on Quebeckers' cellphone bills. However, he kept going and kept asking the same question again, as though a committee worked the same way torture does, as though the more he laid into them, the more they would talk. He was told again that it had no impact.
However, the world record was set at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier debated two motions at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is the only one of the 42 million people in Canada who speaks French to diesel. He is the only such person in Canada, because he is trying to get into cabinet. He is prepared to do anything, including grovelling, and he believes propane is bilingual. He is the only person like that in Canada. I could not make this stuff up. There are lists of things like that.
This is a party that has no respect for parliamentary institutions, no respect for the intelligence of Canadians and Quebeckers, and no respect for facts. This party has no respect for anything. Meanwhile, they are not attacking the oil subsidies. They say they want to shrink the size of government, provided that oil is not affected.
There are two kinds of Conservatives who foist this kind of debate on us. The first kind are the creationists, for whom human biology originates with Adam and Eve in fig leaves, the apple, the serpent and all that. They believe that the Earth is flat and that climate change does not exist. They are told to be quiet, but they exist and there are many of them. These people believe things that are not true, but I think that they are sincere in their beliefs.
Then there are the other members of this party, particularly the Conservatives from Quebec, the ones who are pro-Charest, former Liberals and former members of Action Démocratique du Québec. These people supported the Quebec system, and today they want to become ministers. What do they say? First they say that this is not an environmental plan, but rather a tax plan, even though anyone who has studied taxation beyond the fundamentals was taught that, in a modern tax system, taxation has an impact on the environment. These members are lying to Quebeckers.
They say that it is not working because greenhouse gas emissions have increased. They are incapable of understanding that, without appropriate pricing, emissions would have increased more rapidly. These people have driver's licences, yet they do not know the difference between braking and reversing. I would certainly never lend them my car. These people say that, because China has done nothing, we will do nothing. The Conservatives have decided to look to Communist China for policy inspiration. They are waiting for the Communists to act first. What next? Will they congratulate Putin on his re-election? It almost seems that way. These Conservatives are inconsistent. The reason they are acting this way is quite simple: They are exploiting people's distress.
That is why today's motion refers to a survey, not to facts. That tells us how they think and how they practise politics. It tells us what they think of people's intelligence and how they will govern when the time comes. It will be by survey.
Meanwhile, in Quebec, we made the transition. We were smart about it, because we realized that everybody else was transitioning and that western Canada could not separate itself from the rest of the world, any more than Quebec could. That said, we can and should separate from Canada.
What did we do? We banked on the environment and the transition. Today, it is working, and companies from all over the world are coming to set up shop in Quebec, where there is clean energy, because, in a few years' time, their customers will be asking for decarbonized goods. In fact, we now wonder if we will have enough megawatts of clean energy to have them come here, create jobs and generate economic growth. We have created five industrial clusters in Canada with superclusters and oil money. Within the next decade, we should be able to create 47 new ones.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives want to live in the Stone Age. They want to live in the past.
If anyone wants to know whether I support this motion, I will let my colleagues figure out the answer. I think that the smart people will be able to guess that the Bloc Québécois will vote against it.
926 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 12:18:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and thank him for his speech.
I will have the opportunity later to say more about what we have been proposing for years now on climate change, because, yes, we recognize that climate change is real and that we need to do something about it. After eight years of the Liberal government, however, the results are not there.
What does my colleague think about the action of his neighbour, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change? After eight years of the Liberal government, the UN ranked Canada 62nd out of 67 in terms of effectiveness against climate change.
Is he aware that the Liberal carbon tax has put Canada in 62nd place, that Canada has never managed to meet its targets in eight years and that we are a long way from the ambitious targets of the Paris Agreement, while this government and his Liberal neighbour, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, have done absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
What does he think of his neighbour?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, but I have to say, it is such a challenge to follow in the footsteps of my leader on this very specific issue.
Canadians are once again being forced to deal with an unfortunate government decision to take even more money out of taxpayers' pockets.
According to the Liberal plan, in just a few days, on April 1, the carbon tax will increase. We are not talking about a small hike of 3% or 4% because of inflation. We are talking about a 23% increase. Such a dramatic tax hike is something that happens rarely, if ever. Unfortunately, the Liberal carbon tax has the blind support of the NDP and the enthusiastic support of the Bloc Québécois, which desperately wants to drastically increase the carbon tax. That is their choice. It is their decision. It is not ours.
Canadians are struggling right now. We saw some sad incidents in Montreal where the police had to intervene because hundreds and hundreds of people were getting impatient when trying to access the food bank. Canada is a G7 country. Montreal is the capital of francophone America, but unfortunately, it is facing terrible situations like these. This is not the Canada that I love. Canada needs to do a lot better.
People are being crushed under the weight of financial hardship, and housing prices and rents have tripled. Meanwhile, this government, to help taxpayers, wants to raise the carbon tax on April 1. That is not the right choice.
Some will say we need to address climate change. Yes, we recognize that climate change is real and must be addressed, but with pragmatic measures, not dogmatic ones. What is the government's track record? Think back to when the Liberals got elected in 2015. They were so proud to say “Canada is back”. A few weeks after the election, the Prime Minister arrived in Paris, all proud and happy, saying that Canada was back and that there would finally be concrete measures to control global pollution and that Canada would be a leader. The founder of Equiterre, who is now a minister and is currently being sued by Equiterre, was saying he was proud to be Canadian and to see the Prime Minister talking like that.
Is Canada back? Canada is way back. That is the reality.
After eight years of this Liberal government, after eight years of lecturing from the Liberal Prime Minister, after eight years of imposing and increasing the Liberal carbon tax, what has this government achieved? Zilch. Not a single target has been reached, except during COVID-19. I hope the plan is not to shut down the economy, as we had to do during COVID-19, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Canada is not among the 13 countries that met the Paris Agreement targets. Canada actually ranks 62nd out of 67 countries in terms of climate change performance. Despite all the announcements, all the words, all the commitments and all the ambitious targets, the Canadian government, this government's Liberal Canada, comes in 62nd out of 67. That is not according to the MEI, the Fraser Institute or the Conservative Party. That is according to the UN. Every year, the UN presents its rankings at COP. At the latest COP, which was held in Dubai, Canada ranked 62nd. I will have the opportunity to talk about the minister's trip to Dubai in committee a little later. This is not something we are happy about. It hurts to say it, but it is the truth. The Liberals were too focused on a dogmatic approach instead of a pragmatic one.
If the Liberal carbon tax worked, we would know it, but it is not working. That is why the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition, mentioned an article published in today's edition of the Journal de Montréal under the headline “For the first time in history, Canada is the most polluted country in North America”. According to the article, the 13 most polluted cities in North America are all in Canada. That is the Liberal record after eight years of government lectures. No one is happy about it, but that is the reality.
We believe that we have to get rid of the Liberal carbon tax, and we are not the only ones who feel that way.
Seven of Canada's provincial premiers cannot all be wrong at the same time. Seven provincial premiers have asked the Liberal government to drop this policy, which will cause inflation and, most significantly, leave taxpayers with even less money in their pockets. One such premier is the very Liberal premier of Newfoundland. Although I do not know him personally, he is someone who, like all Canadians, sees a tax hike of this magnitude as a very bad idea. The 23% increase comes at a time when everyone is struggling with housing, the cost of living or the price of food. Regrettably, we are not even talking about the price of food anymore, but about the incidents happening at food banks. That is not the Canada we want.
For that reason, as Conservatives, we support pragmatic approaches above all. Climate change is real and we have to deal with it. In his speech at our national convention in Quebec City last September, the “Quebec City speech”, as we call it here, our leader described our party's vision and the pillars of action that we intend to focus on in our fight against climate change.
This was done at a Conservative national convention. Some 2,500 delegates from across Canada, representing all 338 ridings, gathered in my region, Quebec City. I am very proud of that. The reason I am explaining the partisan political framework for this announcement is that, quite often, when people do not want to talk about something, they announce it on a Friday afternoon at 4 p.m. in a brief press release. They say thank you, have a good night, and no one talks about it. In contrast, I am talking about a milestone speech for our party.
In English, I would say that it was a milestone speech by our leader in front of 2,500 members and supporters of our party, from coast to coast among the 338 ridings, who attended this convention. That milestone speech by our leader, le discours de Québec, was very important. We set the table for the next government, if we receive that support. We would be honoured to receive the support of Canadians.
This environmental plan is built on four pillars. The fundamental objective is to reduce pollution. The government has demonstrated that pollution cannot be reduced by taxing it. We believe that what we need are very pragmatic measures, not dogmatic ones.
The first pillar would be to provide tax incentives for companies to use high-tech solutions to reduce pollution. The companies are the ones creating the greenhouse gases, and they know why they create pollution. It is up to the companies to decide for themselves. They are the ones that know why they create pollution and how to reduce it. They should be incited and encouraged to do so through tax incentives.
The second pillar of the Conservatives' action on the environment would be to green-light green projects. Now more than ever, we need green energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear power. We need these green energy sources. We need to green-light green projects. I am pleased to see that my colleagues opposite are smiling at this proposal. We introduced Bill C-375 to speed up the process. I am pleased to know that the Liberals are going to vote for it, and no doubt the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will have an opportunity to explain why he thinks this is an excellent idea.
The third pillar would be the Canadian advantage. Here in Canada, we have everything we need to deal with climate change and everything we need in terms of natural resources, energy and knowledge. We just need to use them. I am from Quebec. HEC Montréal published its “State of Energy in Quebec” report a few weeks ago. It found that consumption of petroleum products increased by 7% over the past year. The thing that worries me the most is that 48% of the products consumed comes from the U.S. energy sector, more specifically from Texas and Louisiana. I have nothing against those two states, but as long as we are using fossil fuels, we should be getting them from Canadian sources instead of sending millions of dollars to another country.
The fourth pillar, and quite likely the foundation of all of this, would be to work hand in hand with first nations to address climate change.
We are against radically increasing the carbon tax on April 1. Seven provincial premiers cannot all be wrong. On the contrary, they are right. I would like this government to give Canadians a break and scrap the idea of increasing the Liberal carbon tax.
1550 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:50:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member talked about the leader quite a bit, but I think he is being a little humble. He, too, was a leader. He was the leader of the ADQ, which later became and is now known as the CAQ in Quebec.
When he was the leader, he voted with the National Assembly of Québec, unanimously, to bring in cap and trade, which is another form of a price on pollution. As a matter of fact, the last person to speak in the National Assembly was this member, when he said, “We are satisfied that there will be a register of greenhouse gas emissions, and the fact that all the information will be public confirms the desire for transparency that unites us here in this House.” That is what the member said just before he participated in a unanimous vote to bring in pricing pollution in Quebec.
I am wondering if he could inform the House as to why he has had such a dramatic change of heart, and if he no longer believes in that system that he voted for.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:51:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have seen the member do far better than this. However, to address, first of all, the quote that the member gave, I can repeat it without any question, because it has nothing to do with the price on pollution. We were talking about the registry on emissions of gas. That has nothing to do with this policy. That happened 11 years ago.
Since then, after more than 10 years of the application of a cap-and-trade system, we recognize, and I am not quoting myself but the environment minister of Quebec, that with that system, $233 million is leaving Quebec and going to California.
I do not think that California is a third world country.
It is not a developing country.
I do not think it needs Quebec money. I think Quebec can deal with this situation by itself.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:54:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I like my colleague very much, but we lived through the Harper years, when the lineups at food banks doubled and the cost of housing doubled. We also heard the same speeches as the one the member just gave.
In 2006, the Conservatives told us that they would take care of the environment. What happened? We became the fourth-worst country in the world with respect to emissions that contribute to climate change. The Conservative government was a disaster for the environment.
My question for my colleague is simple, and I know that he is sincere. Why does he align himself with the Conservative Party, a party that denies climate change?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:11:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to the important issue of a price on pollution and the carbon rebate.
I want to take a bit of a different angle on just how isolated the Conservative Party of Canada is today. When we look at the issue of a price on pollution, we will find it actually originates in 2015 in Paris, where the world came together and said not only that climate is change real but also that we need to take a policy direction around the world to try to limit the amount of emissions and ultimately reduce them so we would have a better environment worldwide.
What we have witnessed over the years is a high level of participation from countries around the world. For example, the European Union, which is made up of many different countries, including France, Italy and so many others, came up with the green deal, which in essence is about a price on pollution. We can also look at countries like Ireland, England and Mexico. We often say that the United States does not have a price on pollution, but that is not quite accurate because there are many American states that do.
Not only does Canada have a national price on pollution, but the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec also have a price on pollution. In the House of Commons today, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party are in favour of a price on pollution. We used to have a Conservative leader, Erin O'Toole, who was in favour of a price on pollution. Then we have to factor in where the Conservative Party is today. The Conservatives have isolated themselves to say that they do not support a price on pollution, even though under their former leader Erin O'Toole, in that policy platform, all the Conservatives, including the current leader, advanced, promoted and encouraged a price on pollution. It is in their platform.
What we have witnessed since the new leader was minted not that long ago is that the far right element of the Conservative Party has taken control. The whole idea of the MAGA Conservatives has taken control through the leadership of the Conservative Party today. Because of that, Conservatives have changed their mind. They now say they are not in favour of a price on pollution. The world is changing and is recognizing the importance of a sound policy decision, but an irresponsible Conservative Party today is saying no to a price on pollution.
England today is saying to countries around that world that if they are going to be exporting products to England and do not have a mechanism for a price on pollution, they are going to have to pay additional fees on that merchandise going into England. That is something it is acting on and is going to be putting into place. What does the Conservative Party really think about a price on pollution and the impact that will have on trade?
We saw that with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, where Conservatives were prepared to use it as their sole issue as part of the rationale for opposing the Canada-Ukraine agreement, because there was reference to a price on pollution. It was not always their sole issue but was their second issue. If we think about it, Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Ukraine wants to be able to have a formal trade agreement with the European Union, which also has a price on pollution.
However, the Conservative leadership and the members across the way have closed their eyes like an ostrich, put their head in the sand and do not recognize good, sound policy. I can say that is not in the best interest of Canadians, just like it was not in the best interest of Canadians when the Conservative Party voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That is the reality. The statements and the policy direction of the Conservative Party, with the far right element, is to the detriment of good, sound public policy, which is going to be there for future generations of Canadians and others. Canada needs things such as trade agreements. We need international trade; that is a good thing.
The rest of the world is recognizing that the environment matters and that the price on pollution is an effective tool, but we have the leader of the official opposition going around saying he is going to get rid of the price on pollution. How backward-thinking is that when we contrast it to what the rest of the world is doing? That is not responsible public policy-making.
Instead, the Conservatives are more focused on developing a bumper sticker that they believe is going to get them votes. They believe they are going to be able to fool Canadians. That is the bottom line. They have no faith in Canadians' understanding the reality; we see that in what they are telling Canadians.
The question I had earlier today for the leader of the official opposition was this: Why does the Conservative Party not participate in political panels on CTV or CBC? Canadians still view those networks.
One member is saying, “No, they do not.”
Mr. Speaker, CTV and CBC would argue differently, and so would I. I think CTV and CBC have played a very important part in public debate for generations. The leader of the Conservative Party says they are state-operated organizations. How ridiculously stupid is it to make that sort of assertion? The leader says it not only here in the House; he says it outside the House also as he chooses to avoid true accountability on some of the stupid things he is saying, things that are absolutely misleading.
He will go to the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec and try to give the false impression that they have the same sort of carbon taxing system as Manitoba, Atlantic Canada, Alberta and others have. That is just not true. He tries to tell people in the provinces where there is a carbon tax, a federal backstop of a carbon tax, that they are paying far more into the carbon tax system than they are receiving.
Again, we have said very clearly, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out by his specific example, that a vast majority of people actually receive more money back from the rebate than they pay through carbon tax on gas and heating their homes. That is something the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made very clear. Over 80% of people will receive more dollars back than they will put directly into the carbon tax. That is indisputable. Members of all political parties, except for the Conservatives, are acknowledging that.
What does that mean? When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to axe the tax, it also means he is going to get rid of the rebates. When Conservatives talk about getting rid of the rebates, they are telling well over 80% of my constituents that they will have less disposal income because of that particular action. I find disgraceful what the leader of the official opposition is spreading across the country.
1229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
