44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 19, 2024 10:00AM
- Mar/19/24 11:09:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again the Conservatives are saying the quiet part out loud, which is that they deny the existence of climate change, an existential threat to humanity. They come back time and time again with slogans. I have said before that their only environmental plan is to recycle slogans in this place. They represent ridings across the country, ridings that are in drought, or that have suffered from fires, floods and hurricanes, which have been exacerbated by climate change. What do they do? They heckle, mock, and deny. They offer no plan for the future and mislead Canadians on what is actually increasing prices.
The major increase that Canadians are suffering from, especially on food, is with respect to climate change. I have asked a number of Conservative members over the course of the last couple of years to explain to me why prices for food in the United States have increased at the same rate they have increased in Canada. They have increased at the same rate, even though there is not a national price on pollution in the United States.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are still heckling me. They cannot even accept the evidence before them that it is climate change. They cannot accept it from the farmers in their own ridings. I have seen it in Niagara with vine loss.
231 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 11:19:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, the rebate is not mentioned, which covers the things he is talking about. Farmers are exempt. Farm diesel is exempt from the price on pollution.
We can incentivize car companies, for example. The auto industry is one of the most innovative in the world when it comes to greening up. We have much more fuel-efficient vehicles precisely because of initiatives by government and regulation in terms of making cars less polluting.
I know that they would like to throw that away, but I honestly believe that the member, who comes from a province that has suffered from the severe impacts of climate change, wants to see action rather than saying that we do not care, which seems to be where the Conservative Party is right now.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:21:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec has shown us how effective a price on pollution has been, which was in existence well before the federal price and well before we got elected. Some members of the Conservative Party were members of a British Columbia Conservative Party that brought in a price on pollution because they knew it was effective.
I think it is going to take all of us to dispel the misinformation that is being spouted by the Conservative Party on this issue, to care about the climate, to care about our children and future generations or to at least have the Conservatives come up with some kind of plan.
Someone called the price on pollution a magic bullet. It is not, but the Conservatives offer nothing. We could maybe demand that they offer something to explain to Canadians what they are going to do.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:23:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are doing it. We are ending fossil fuel subsidies. We are engaging in serious plans on technology and on other issues. It is not just a price on pollution; it is a comprehensive plan. We are working on it, and we are happy to work with the NDP on this issue. We have been taking action since 2015, and we will continue to do so.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, no one can really explain this. No sane person in Quebec thinks that climate change is not real. We are living it. I am living it in my riding with coastal erosion. It is a scourge and we need to do more to fight it.
One of the first things we can do is put a price on pollution, but we also need to stop subsidizing oil companies, which pollute enormously.
In Bill C‑59, which we voted on yesterday, there are still billions of dollars in tax credits for these oil companies that make billions of dollars in profits. If we took all that money and helped Canadians cope with the rising cost of living, it seems to me we would be further ahead. It seems to me we would be further ahead if we invested in green economies and green energy.
I will stop here. I hope the NDP will support these measures.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:08:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party and its representatives in the House can be criticized for many things, and I point that out whenever I can, but I want to start by saying that one thing we cannot fault them for is their lack of determination. There is a definite consistency in their obsession with the price on pollution or the carbon tax. One thing is for sure: They are not giving up. They keep coming back to us with this fantasy of doing nothing to fight climate change, this climate crisis affecting the entire planet.
Every day, every week, we hear that the situation is worse than what the experts thought, worse than what the experts at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, have been telling us for years. Let us look at some very recent and quite harrowing examples.
Let us start with the price on pollution or the carbon tax, which has been in place in some provinces for a few years now. I would remind the House that this does not apply in Quebec, despite what my Conservative colleagues from Quebec are saying, which is that a trucker who fills up in Ontario could feel the effects. It is minimal. It is almost insignificant. Quebec has had a carbon exchange for years now, which is a slightly different tool from a price on pollution or a carbon tax.
What the Conservatives never say and what the Liberals have such a hard time explaining is that there is a financial compensation program for middle-class families as well as for the poorest workers in the provinces where this carbon tax applies.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is a leading authority on Parliament Hill, 80% of Canadian households in provinces where this applies get more back than they pay in carbon taxes, a legitimate price indicator tool to change behaviours.
It also seems really strange to me that the Conservatives have spent years refusing to apply a market rule that could change the behaviour of individuals and big corporations or maybe both.
The people in greatest need, those struggling to pay rent or buy groceries, will receive financial compensation. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that 80% of Canadian households will receive more money back than they pay out. The Conservatives say nothing about that and the Liberals, for whatever reason, are incapable of explaining it. The political communication has been terrible.
According to Statistics Canada's models, 94% of households with an annual income below $50,000 will get back more in rebates or compensation than they pay out in carbon taxes applied to their daily or weekly purchases. Obviously, we will never hear that from a Conservative, and that is a real shame. Facts are facts, and I think our debates in the House should be grounded in facts.
The Conservative Party is moving its 29th motion on the carbon tax in a very specific context. We keep hearing in the news that the planet is headed for a dead end. We are being told that we are moving in the wrong direction. This has consequences. The Conservatives have no climate plan, and that is disturbing. Their inaction is troubling. They appear to be wilfully turning a blind eye.
I would now like to read some excerpts from an Agence France-Presse article published in La Presse this morning that reveals some very worrisome information. I will start with this:
Records broken for ocean heat, sea level rise and glacier retreat...2023 capped off the warmest 10-year period on record, with the UN warning on Tuesday that the planet is “on the brink”.
The Tuesday referred to in the article is today. The study came out this morning.
A new report from the World Meteorological Organization or WMO, a UN agency, shows that records were once again broken, and in some cases smashed, for greenhouse gas levels, surface temperatures, ocean heat and acidification, sea level rise, Antarctic sea ice cover and glacier retreat.
That is pretty much the perfect storm for making things worse. Even with our targets for reducing greenhouse gases to prevent natural disasters, to prevent people from suffocating, to prevent people from dying from pollution, things are likely only going to get worse.
The article goes on to say the following, and I quote:
The planet is “on the brink” while “fossil fuel pollution is sending climate chaos off the charts”, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned.
“There is still time to throw out a lifeline to people and the planet” but, according to him, we need to act “now”.
The report confirms that 2023 was the hottest year on record, with an average surface temperature of 1.45°C above pre-industrial levels.
The objective of the Paris Agreement was to limit the global warming increase to 1.5°C compared with the temperature in 1830 or 1850. In 2023, the increase reached 1.45°C. There is no doubt about it, we are going to hit the 1.5°C limit. Perhaps we will manage to keep it to a maximum increase of 2°C, but at that rate, not only are we not making any gains, we are going backwards, and backwards faster than we thought.
“Every fraction of a degree of global heating impacts the future of life on Earth”, warned the head of the United Nations.
“The climate crisis is THE defining challenge that humanity faces and is closely intertwined with the inequality crisis—as witnessed by growing food insecurity and population displacement, and biodiversity loss”, said the WMO secretary general....
As I said earlier, 2023 marks the end of the hottest decade on record since 1850. The situation is catastrophic.
On an average day in 2023, nearly one third of the global ocean was gripped by a marine heatwave.... Towards the end of 2023, over 90% of the ocean had experienced heatwave conditions at some point during the year.
In 2023, global mean sea level reached a record high...reflecting continued ocean warming (thermal expansion) as well as the melting of glaciers and ice sheets.
Sea levels are rising because the glaciers are melting. In particular, a big chunk of Antarctica is breaking off. If it melts, average sea levels will rise by several metres, so if we are being honest, for Bangladesh, this is going to pose a few problems. For the city of London, it is going to pose a few problems. For New York City, it is going to pose a few problems. What the Conservative Party is proposing is to carry on, to forge ahead. According to this party, everything is going to be fine, we are going to find a technological magic wand and we are going to capture all the carbon with a big vacuum cleaner that is going to go everywhere. That is not how it works. The technology is unproven.
I could talk about last year's wildfires. There was smoke everywhere, in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, over Montreal. Things will be worse this summer. Not enough rain fell and we did not get enough snow this winter. We will experience more drought and have more wildfires this summer. It is happening around the world.
I am going to quote from an RTL info article posted a few days ago about the situation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It says:
Rio de Janeiro residents are looking for “open spaces” and shade in a park as a new heatwave descends upon Brazil, with record high temperatures.
That was the situation this past Sunday in Rio de Janeiro.
The heatwave that Latin America has been experiencing since the beginning of the year brought the perceived temperature up to a record 62.3°C in Brazil this weekend....
That is not livable. Obviously, people are at risk of getting sick. They are at risk of dying. All of the health care professionals who are concerned about the climate crisis and the environment are saying that this is a matter of human lives. It is also an economic matter. Some insurance companies are refusing to cover apartments and houses that are too close to the water. Drought, flooding and forest fires are happening and will only get worse. Quebeckers and Canadians are the ones who will pay the price given the impact on their lives and their bodies. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party is not presenting any solutions.
1432 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 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
- Mar/19/24 1:26:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that Canadians, as a whole, recognize the principle that the polluters need to pay. The government has recognized this and, ultimately, moving in very significant ways, has put a price on pollution. Today, it is oriented. We continued to go in the right direction on that matter in all aspects.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:55:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in June I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer what would happen if we did away with the carbon tax and went toward subsidies and regulations, or what would happen if we did nothing. The U.S. has made it clear there would be a border carbon adjustment, and I asked what the impact would be on those eight in 10 Canadians.
He said that it depends exactly what is done in place of the carbon tax, but if we just speak about a carbon adjustment at the U.S. border, that would probably lead to an economic slowdown in Canada and it would be significant, depending on the adjustment, of course. However, he said it was not unthinkable that this could lead to negative impacts on sectors that are more energy-intensive. He said it would drive up inflation in the U.S., and that in Canada it would probably have the opposite effect and act as a depressor on economic activity and on prices. It would be the opposite effect, which is not much better. This is what he cited. In fact, one could say it is worse because it would depress economic activity.
My colleague ran on a price on pollution. As my colleague knows, I am always trying to work on solutions. What are Conservatives proposing in place of a carbon tax to ensure that Canadians do not get the impact of a carbon adjustment at the border with the U.S., the U.K. and the EU?
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 2:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 families across the country, in the regions where we have put a federal price on pollution, are getting more money with the price on pollution.
What the Leader of the Opposition is proposing is not only to take away the cheques that are given to families to help with the cost of groceries, rent and the impact of climate change, but also to do nothing to fight climate change and build a stronger future.
We are here to help Canadians with cheques. We are here to fight climate change.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 2:20:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a family of four in Nova Scotia gets about $824 back in a year for the price on pollution.
The Canadian carbon rebate delivers more money into the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians right across the country. The Leader of the Opposition wants to take away those Canada carbon rebate cheques from Canadian families, where eight out of 10 families do better even with the price on pollution.
It is a way of fighting climate change, building a safer and more prosperous future and putting more money back into the pockets of Canadians, which is something he wants to take away.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 2:24:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for Canadians watching politics and watching question period, for reporters in the gallery, or for anyone who wants to see a concrete example of the fact that the leader of the official opposition does not care about the facts, this is it. He does not care about the evidence, and he does not care about how the federation works. He just wants to make clever arguments and score partisan points.
The fact is that British Columbia's price on pollution has been there since 2008 and will continue to be administered by British Columbia, not the federal government.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:05:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the MP who just spoke is a member of Parliament for B.C., and British Columbia is rightly proud of its place as a leader in Canada and the world in having a price on pollution since 2008. It is a provincial system that the people of B.C. support, so either the Conservative Party is ignorant about that or it disrespects the people of B.C.
With respect to small businesses, the money will be going back to small businesses very soon.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:06:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for that MP from British Columbia, but I am really disappointed that he seems entirely ignorant of how the price on pollution works in B.C. There is no federal backstop in B.C. There is no federal backstop on B.C. small businesses nor on the people of B.C.
B.C. has an exceptional system for pricing pollution, which the province has had in place since 2008. The people of B.C. are proud of it, and they should be.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 4:03:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my Conservative colleague, and he made no mention of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the price on pollution puts money back in the pockets of middle‑class families and the least fortunate. What is more, 80% of the people who pay the tax receive more in compensation than they pay in carbon tax. The tax does not apply in all provinces.
Obviously, the Conservative Party is not saying that. If my colleague is so concerned about the cost of living for people, why did he and his party vote against removing the GST from heating costs? Why did he vote against dental care for seniors? Why did he vote against a school nutrition program for children?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 4:34:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution helps the most vulnerable people in this country. If we got rid of the carbon tax, it would only help the wealthiest people in Canada.
The highest-income earners will benefit and the lowest earners and middle-class Canadians, who are the majority of hard-working Canadians in this country, will lose out.
I appreciate my colleague's question. I want to say that we are helping Canadians and that we always want to help the middle class.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 4:36:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will get to the conversation around pricing pollution, but I want to start with a threshold question that we all have to answer: Do members care to take action to save our planet? Do they care to reduce emissions for our kids? Do they care? If the answer is yes, then we get to a different question, which is how we are going to reduce emissions in the most efficient way. If we want to respect taxpayer dollars, then we reduce emissions in the most efficient way.
We hear a lot about common sense from across the aisle. Common sense presumably should be that polluters pay, and pollution, members should know, is a classic market failure. I have heard some people bandying about different economic opinions on what a market failure is. In this case, the cost of polluting is costless to the polluter and is borne collectively by all of us. What is the answer to that? The answer is a price signal. The common-sense answer, very simply, is to make polluters pay. That is what this price on pollution does. We do not want to penalize people or make them worse off. We just want to change the behaviour, so matched with that price, internalizing that negative externality, we make sure there is a rebate and recycle the revenue.
I have heard people go back and forth on this. The fact is that, of the 100% of the revenue that goes back to the provinces of origin, 90% goes back to households directly. If there were a motion today that said that 100% should go back to households, I would vote for it for sure. We could improve it, but the fact is that 90% goes back. It is largely revenue-neutral.
I heard a question asking if it works. Of course it works. This is not me saying this. If we look at the emissions progress report for 2030, we see more than a steady decline. We see a decline from business as usual. If we had taken no action from 2015 on, or the kind of action we saw under the Harper government, we would have seen emissions rise to 815 megatonnes by 2030. If we look at that progress report, does anyone in the House know what it stands to be with all of the action we have put into place? It stands to be 467 megatonnes, which is not nearly enough and not where we need it to be, but that is a 43% reduction from business as usual and 36% toward our 40% target. We are very close to being where we say we want to be.
By the way, a good amount of that is because of the price on pollution. The progress report says that 30% of that reduction in emissions comes from the price on pollution. When we look at that delta of 815 megatonnes down to 467 megatonnes, 23% of that total reduction from business as usual comes from the price on pollution, so, yes, it works as part of a very serious overall comprehensive climate plan.
It is easy to care about climate change when we are well fed. I have heard a lot of talk in the House that the price on pollution is making people poorer, the worst among us, and it is hurting those who are already hurting. It is deeply cynical to trade on a real affordability crisis, to trade on the real stress and real struggles of so many people in need, to undermine an effective and efficient climate action that makes most households whole. It does not increase the cost of everything to send people to food banks. I said this when asking a question of a colleague and did not receive a good answer. We have seen 20% food inflation these last two years, and the price on pollution, economists tell us, accounts for under 1% of any inflationary impact. That is not the cause of the affordability crisis.
We could have a very interesting debate about interest rates. Maybe the member for Carleton would tell us that he wants to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We have had very interesting debates about interest rates and what is truly driving the cost of living crisis. It is absolutely not, economists will tell us, the price on pollution.
We could also have an interesting debate about social welfare in this country. We have increased the Canada child benefit significantly. We have brought hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. We have increased the Canada workers benefit. We have increased the GIC for seniors. Do members know what provincial governments have done, largely Conservative provincial governments? They have not increased welfare and disability supports in line with the rise in inflation. I am standing here in Ontario, and the member could tell me what the Ford government has done to make sure disability payments keep pace with the cost of inflation, but Conservatives have done next to nothing.
Do we want to talk about the real cost of living crisis and what drives that cost of living crisis? We could talk about food inflation. We could talk about interest rates, and we could talk about the lack of provincial action in their areas of responsibility. What we should not talk about, if we care about facts in the House, is the price on pollution.
Much has been made of the PBO report. I wonder sometimes, listening to the debate in the House, whether anyone has actually read this report, so let me quote from it. On a fiscal basis, “most households will see a net gain [versus] the...fuel charge...and related GST”. As well, “The fiscal-only impact...is broadly progressive.”
Hang on. What is this about? The PBO says it is going to cost us more. I am going to be absolutely fair in this, and there is a real debate we should have because what the PBO actually says is that, on a fiscal basis, for the cash-in, cash-out money that households pay and get back, 80% of households are, in fact, better off.
What the PBO goes on to say is that, when one takes into account GDP impacts from the price on pollution, we see modest GDP reductions, though they are significant on a household basis, so most households are worse off if one includes fiscal and economic factors. They do not say that about low-income households so, again, trading on food banks and offering no real suggestions for helping people out of poverty is completely incorrect, even in the PBO's analysis.
Let us focus a little more on whether the PBO is right. Fiscal analysis is easy. It is money in and money out. On an economic basis, I would say they are wrong. It is not gospel.
We have this from the American Economic Journal, for example, on the macro impact of carbon pricing: “We find no evidence for a negative impact on employment or GDP growth but rather find a zero to modest positive impact.”
There is also this, from the IMF, from June: “Countries that do not recycle revenues experience a substantial economic downturn while countries that recycle revenues only display a muted impact on economic activity.” For those keeping track at home, Canada recycles revenues.
Worse, and this is fatal, let me quote the PBO as well. I wonder how this is not part of the conversation: “The scope of the report is limited to estimating the distributional impact of the federal fuel charge and does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change.”
Maybe Conservatives could explain to me why we would consider the negative economic impacts of one side of the ledger of the price on pollution, and the fiscal impacts are better for households, but we would not consider alternative scenarios.
We hear about “technology, not taxes”, but that is going to cost households more. It is going to be paid for by taxes or, worse, if we do not take into account the real economic costs of unchecked climate change. Let us be absolutely clear. If one does not have a serious climate plan in this country, and the federal Conservatives are not interested in a serious climate plan, we are going to see unchecked climate change.
Let us return to costs. We have Conservatives who have no plan. Since I have been in Parliament, they have had no plan, except for Erin O'Toole, who was promptly ousted. Why was he ousted? For having a plan, and “technology, not taxes” is not a plan.
What does the price on pollution do? The price on pollution says to consumers that it will be more expensive to pollute. Consumers will seek out cleaner alternatives and businesses will respond by innovating to meet consumer demand. If one does not have that price, which is internalizing that negative externality, businesses are not going to innovate. We are not going to see serious climate action from the private sector.
If one wants technology, not taxes, it is going to be left to government subsidies alone, and where do government subsidies come from, Conservative friends? They come from taxes.
If one wants one's taxes to go up, then axe the tax.
1579 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 5:03:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Nose Hill knows that I certainly agree with the need to address affordability issues for folks across the country, in her community and in mine. I believe that she is sincere in her interest in doing so. I know she would not feel that the rebates are sufficient when it comes to the price on pollution.
I would like to hear from her, though, about this. When it comes to addressing affordability, she knows, as do I, that the profits of the oil and gas industry have gone up astronomically over the last year. In fact, it was 18¢ a litre, an increase in profits from 24¢ to some 40-odd cents last year. There are no rebates attached to that gouging at the pump.
Would she not agree that more needs to be done to address affordability by looking at those excess profits and redirecting those to help Canadians afford day-to-day life?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
