SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Mar/19/24 4:31:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. My colleague canvassed and campaigned for the leader of the provincial Liberal Party. She announced today that, if the Liberals get elected, which I highly doubt, she will cut the carbon tax. Which leader does he support?

44 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/19/24 4:32:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King—Vaughan ran on a platform in the last election on pricing carbon. She ran with the former leader of the Conservative Party on a platform on pricing carbon. It was in their platform, so she is either misleading the House or misleading her constituents, or both. This is what she is doing. I am the member for Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I represent my constituents. I have always been straight up with them, and I always will be. Others need to do the same.

93 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Mar/19/24 4:33:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his carbon tax cost analysis, the Parliamentary Budget Officer talked about the quintiles that benefited most from the carbon tax. He said that the most disadvantaged in terms of the fuel charge were in the top income quintiles, that is, the people who earn the most money and, ultimately, consume the most. Of course, oil companies have to pay the carbon tax, too. They generate a lot of greenhouse gases, so they pay more. If we eliminate the carbon tax, will oil companies end up getting even more money? Will the less fortunate be penalized and get even less money?

103 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

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

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/19/24 4:34:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier today my colleague, the member for Victoria, asked similar questions and did not receive a good response, so I will ask this member. In terms of output-based pricing, New Democrats do not believe it is fair. We do believe in carbon pricing. However, Suncor pays 14 times less than an average Canadian in carbon pricing. Why will the government not make big oil companies pay what they owe and pay their fair share?

77 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/19/24 4:35:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I work with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe on the parliamentary association for the Ahmadiyya community. She is one of the co-chairs. I would like to say that all Canadians and all Canadian companies need to pay their fair share in this transition to a green and greening economy, as I like to refer to it. With regard to our carbon pricing system, for individuals we know that out of eight out of 10 Canadians, and eight in 10 Canadian families even more so, are made better off with this system. We know that better is always possible, of course. With regard to industries and so forth, there are about 800,000 Canadians who work in the energy sector from coast to coast to coast. They are hard-working and we will support them in this transition, but we know we will need to utilize those resources in this transition as we move forward. I look forward to having these continuing conversations with the hon. member and with all colleagues on how we continue to grow a strong economy and continue to have a healthy environment and a bright future for all Canadians, particularly our children.

201 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

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

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Mar/19/24 4:45:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague across the way was so adamant for the need to make the carbon tax revenue-neutral because it goes against a comment made by someone else who stated, twice in the House, that the government made a decision to make it revenue-neutral. This member then stood up another time and said that it is revenue-neutral at the federal level. Guess who that other member was? It was the exact same member. Finance Canada told public accounts that, last year, $670 million was not given back in rebates. It was kept by the government. Going back as far as 2019, it started at $100 million, which was kept, per the public accounts, for government programming, not returned in rebates. What is it? Is it revenue-neutral, as the member has stated twice, or is it not revenue-neutral, as public accounts has stated, and as he stated earlier today?

157 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:46:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, 90% of the dollars go directly back to households. On the revenue neutrality, 100% of revenues go back to provinces of origin: 90% goes to households directly and the other 10% goes into businesses, municipalities and— An hon. member: It does not. Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Mr. Speaker, there is that other 10%, and there is a credible debate to be had as to whether that 10% should be allocated the way it has been allocated. I would argue that, if there were a vote in the House, and members are free to bring forward the motion, I would vote for 100% revenue neutrality, but when they want to axe it entirely, it is a joke of a motion. I will vote that down every time.

135 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mar/19/24 4:47:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the fact that the polluters should pay. The NDP, of course, agrees. The PBO report stated that Canada could generate $4 billion in revenues from a windfall profits tax. When the NDP called for big oil to pay what it owes to help families, the Liberals sided with the Conservatives, voted it down and would not support it. Why are the Liberals more interested in protecting corporate profits than helping working people?

77 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:48:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my last two budget submissions, I spoke to excess profit taxes. We have seen them on banks and insurance companies. We have seen them from U.K. Conservatives on oil and gas. It is absolutely a conversation we should have in the House. U.K. Conservatives were, I think at one point, models for Conservatives here until they lost their way, but if U.K. Conservatives have put this in place, then there is no reason we cannot have that debate and put it in place here as well.

92 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Mar/19/24 4:48:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows perfectly well that the Liberal government is currently making money by collecting the carbon tax. What I mean by that is that none of this money is being set aside for the environment. However, the oil companies are still alive and well in Canada. Is the government doing one thing and saying another? I would like the member to explain exactly what his government is doing.

70 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:49:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there is a comprehensive climate plan. It touches on many different areas. The price on pollution is responsible for a huge number of emission reductions when we look at the plan up to 2030, and it is responsible for between 23% and 30% of the overall plan. If we were to axe the tax, it would cost a lot to replace those significant emission reductions. That is if, on a threshold question, someone cared. If they do not care, then they should be honest about it and say they do not care. As to what we are doing otherwise, there are many different things. There are investments in public transit. There are investments in clean tech. There are rules on methane emissions. Yes, there are rules forthcoming, regulations that are being debated right now, around an emissions cap on oil and gas.

150 words

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 4:50:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech, which had the added bonus of agitating the Conservatives. The simple question I have is on the PBO's economic analysis. Does he include the ever-increasing cost of insurance for floods and fire?

44 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Mar/19/24 4:50:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because the answer is no. In fact, the Financial Times had an article the other day that said that insurance premiums are a hidden carbon price and that we are going to pay for climate action one way or the other. What I would put to my Conservative friends is, if we are going to pay one way or the other, surely we want to harness the power of the free market and pay as little as we possibly can.

87 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Mar/19/24 4:51:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a recent report shows that the NDP-Liberals are going to hike their carbon tax by 23% on April 1, even though it does not work. Canada's environment commissioner says the NDP-Liberals are nowhere near on track to hit their emissions reduction targets and are relying on “overly optimistic assumptions, limited analysis of uncertainties and a lack of peer review.” In fact the NDP-Liberals do not even bother to measure if the carbon tax is working. That is because the NDP-Liberals are increasing their ineffective tax, instead of doing things like fixing Canada's broken and overtaxed electric grid or getting more public transit built. Gas prices are rising and Canadians cannot afford to drive or heat their homes. It is all because of a tax that does not work. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. It is going to be a cruel summer for Canadians because the NDP-Liberals are hiking the carbon tax on food, heat and groceries by a whopping 23% on April 1. Any summer road trips that struggling Canadians might be dreaming about will probably become completely unaffordable because gas prices are about to spike, thanks to the NDP-Liberal tax hikes. Experts say a recent increase in the cost of gas in the GTA might be only the beginning of price hikes at the pumps this summer, with some estimating that the Liberal-NDP tax hike will be part of the reason for a forecasted 20¢ a litre increase by July 1. Canadians deserve to be able to afford to live. They deserve that road trip. They do not deserve more NDP-Liberal taxes. It is time to axe the tax. If someone took $2,000 from someone else and gave them $1,500 back, they would not say thank you. They would say, “Call the cops.” However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada's top budget watchdog, shows that is exactly what is happening to Canadians. The NDP-Liberals' sneaky carbon tax scam takes thousands of dollars from Canadians and only gives them a few hundred dollars back, all while increasing the cost of everything, food, fuel and more, and the NDP-Liberal government expects to be thanked for this. It gets worse. On April 1, the NDP-Liberals want to hike their tax by 23%. Canadians will not say thank you to the NDP-Liberals for taking their cash. They are going to give them the boot. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada's top budget watchdog, the average Alberta family will pay $2,466 for the Liberal-NDP carbon tax and only get $1,750 back. That means that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax will cost them $710 today, rising to a whopping $3,000 by 2030. Where does the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister expect struggling Albertans to find an extra $3,000 to pay for a tax that does not even work? Life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. Canadians are looking for relief, not more tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average Ontario family will pay $1,363 for the NDP-Liberal carbon tax and only get $885 back. This means that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax will take nearly $500 from Ontarians this year, rising to a whopping $1,800 by 2030. Where does the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister expect that struggling Ontarians will find an extra $1,800 for a tax that does not even work? Under the NDP-Liberals, life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. The dream of owning a home has disappeared. Canadians are looking for relief, not more tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average Nova Scotian family will pay $1,039 for the NDP-Liberal carbon tax and only get about $600 back. That means the NDP-Liberals take about $430 out of the pockets of people in that province today, rising to a whopping $1,500 by 2030. Where does the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister expect struggling Nova Scotians to find an extra $1,500 for a tax that does not even work? Under the NDP-Liberals, life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. Canadians are looking for relief, not more tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. A new report shows that the average family's grocery bills will go up another $700 this year alone. Canada's food price report estimates that the annual grocery bill for a family of four in Canada will hit a whopping $16,297 this year, an increase of over $700, but it gets worse. On April 1, the NDP-Liberals are going to raise their carbon tax, a tax on everything including food, by 23%. No one can afford that. That is why food bank usage is at record levels across Canada. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. A new report shows that a 600% increase in food bank usage has occurred within Canada's university students, but there is even more bad news for struggling students. At a time when Canadian students cannot even afford ramen noodles, NDP-Liberals are going to raise their carbon tax, the tax on everything including food, by a whopping 23%. The NDP-Liberals have made it completely unaffordable for today's Canadian university students to ever hope to afford a home of their own, and now they have the audacity to raise the carbon tax on everything by 23%. This insanity has to end. Canadian students deserve better than food bank ramen noodles and a carbon tax. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. Would members spend four minutes alone with Canada's Liberal Prime Minister? Probably not, but recently he said that if Canadians would spend four minutes alone with him, then they would understand how awesome his carbon tax on everything is. Canadians do not need quality time with the Liberal Prime Minister to understand how much the NDP-Liberal carbon tax costs them. That is because they cannot afford food, fuel or rent. They are using food banks. They are losing their homes. Now the NDP-Liberals are going to hike their carbon tax by 23% on April 1. No time alone with the Liberal Prime Minister will change the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax will cost some Canadians almost $3,000 a year. Canadians do not need time alone with the Prime Minister. They need tax relief. This NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. People say that we cannot make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, but the Liberals sure think we can. The NDP-Liberals have announced that they are going to do an expensive rebrand of their unpopular carbon tax and make Canadians pay for it, instead of axing it. Can members believe that? The NDP-Liberals know it is a terrible policy that is costing Canadians more. They know it does not work, and they know Canadians hate it. However, unlike the NDP-Liberals, Canadians cannot simply rebrand their rising bills away. The carbon tax is increasing the cost of the food they buy, the gas they put in their cars and the necessities they purchase at the store, and on April 1, the NDP-Liberals are going to hike that tax by 23%. Life has never been more expensive and people are struggling. They are looking for relief. The NDP-Liberal tax is not worth the cost. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax. After eight years of the Prime Minister, people are worse off than they were eight years ago. They are looking for hope, but the Prime Minister is looking to take more money from them while people are struggling to pay their bills. Instead of giving them that hope, the NDP-Liberals are giving them a tax hike. Their carbon tax hike is going to make everything cost more. That trip to the grocery store this spring will cost more. Filling up their car with gas on their way home from work will cost more. Keeping their house warm and the lights on will cost more. That is what the NDP-Liberals are asking Canadians for all the time: more. All the while, Canadians are getting less and less. I have news for the NDP-Liberals. Canadians do not have more to give. They do not have a little more. They do not have a bit more. They do not have any more. Canadians have had enough. They cannot afford the Prime Minister and they know he is not worth the cost, just like his costly tax, which it is time to axe. If members had to choose between paying for a Disney+ subscription or an NDP-Liberal carbon tax increase, what would they pick? Canada's Liberal finance minister had a big old fail on that front when she told Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet that they should cut that Disney+ subscription, even though she is increasing the NDP-Liberal carbon tax by a whopping 23% on April 1. Time and time again, the government has shown it has no clue how hard it is for regular people to pay for basic necessities like food, rent and fuel. Life is unaffordable and Canadians are tired of being told they have to give more and more to the NDP-Liberals and get less and less out of their lives. It is time to spike the hike and axe the tax.

1716 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Mar/19/24 5:01:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly comprehend this argument that the cost of the carbon tax is going to be passed on to consumers and this is inflationary. It is a good story that the opposition is trying to sell. The problem is that it does not seem to be true or, at least, a lot of experts seem to think that the carbon tax—

65 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Mar/19/24 5:01:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to check. I do not think the member is wearing a tie.

17 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/19/24 5:01:55 p.m.
Watch

Actually, I checked before he got up. He is wearing a tie. The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

21 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Mar/19/24 5:02:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the experts seem to think the carbon tax only minimally contributes to inflation. Let me quote a few of those experts. The Governor of the Bank of Canada in September came to the conclusion that the carbon tax only contributes 0.15% to the inflation rate. In a recent review in Policy Options, a couple of Alberta economists calculated that the carbon tax increased consumer prices by only 0.6% in the last eight years. Stats Canada, in a B.C. study, estimated that the carbon tax only contributed or increased the cost of food by 0.33%. Where are their statistics from? I quoted some. I would like to hear from the opposition. Where are they getting their stats from?

127 words