44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2024 10:00AM
- Mar/21/24 10:50:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to this nonsense motion. I will obviously be voting against it. I would like to think that, if there was any common sense on the other side of the House, Conservatives would recognize just how foolish the motion is when they incorporate the fact that the price on pollution is something the Conservative Party campaigned on in the last federal election.
Instead of trying to reflect the reality of real life today in Canada and the concerns about issues such as affordability and our environment, Conservatives choose to play this game in an attempt to participate in things such as a character assassination of the Prime Minister or the spread of false information, literally misinformation, to Canadians coast to coast to coast.
I would like to put a few things on the record to try to highlight the degree to which Conservatives are misleading Canadians. Let there be no doubt about that. When they say, for example, that they are going to “axe the tax”, what they are really doing is also axing the rebate. For the vast majority of Canadians, if the Conservatives were successful in axing the tax, that little disposable income of 80% or more of Canadians would actually go down. It would go down because we know for a fact that a vast majority of Canadians receive more money through the rebate than they pay in carbon tax. The member for Kingston and the Islands used his own personal example.
Canadians following the debate today are going to hear a lot of disinformation coming from Conservatives. I would recommend they look at the carbon tax they pay on the consumption of gas on an annual basis and the carbon tax they pay for heating their homes and then take a look at the carbon rebate. More than 80% of people will find that the rebate dollars are higher than the tax they are paying. By participating in this program, in the eight provinces that do, it means they are also contributing to a better and healthier environment. That is something in which the Progressive Conservative Party used to believe.
Some might say that I am a bit biased because I sit on the Liberal benches and maybe I am being a little harsh on Conservatives. Everyone knows the names of Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, who are former prime ministers. The leader of the official opposition started off talking about quotes. Let me provide a few quotes from those former prime ministers. The caveat I would put on this is that members have to realize that today's Conservative Party, that MAGA right party we have today, is not the same party of those former prime ministers I just listed off. Let me clearly demonstrate why that is the case.
The leader of the Conservative Party started off talking about quotes. I have a quote for him. I believe this is from the Toronto Star. It is from Kim Campbell, who was not only Canada's first and only female prime minister but a Progressive Conservative prime minister.
To quote the headline, it states that he is a word I cannot say—
Mr. Rick Perkins: Where does she live?
551 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:00:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will continue with the quote.
Brian Mulroney, former prime minister, said, “I think they work better together”. He was talking about the progressive nature tied to the Conservative nature of the party. He said that it works “better together, when both are prominent, and Canadians feel more comfortable” with it.
Let us think about that. We have Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, and Joe Clark all coming up with genuine, legitimate concerns with today's MAGA Conservative Party and the far right element that has infiltrated it. We can take a look at the elements of that far right and how in the States there is misinformation on social media on a daily basis, and that is exactly what we are seeing today on the floor of the House, whether it is from the leader of the Conservative Party or the deputy leader of the Conservative Party.
The leader and the deputy leader of the Conservative Party continue to spread misinformation on a vital progressive piece of legislation and policy. A price on pollution is something that is essential to the development of any western nation. We see that first-hand.
I take a look at what is happening around the world in the European Union and Ukraine. I can talk about Mexico. People often say that there is no price on pollution in the United States, and that is not true. There are a number of states in the U.S. that have it. It is also not only the federal government. The provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have it because it is a progressive way to ensure that polluters, heavy polluters in particular, pay their fair share for polluting.
It is a policy that makes a whole lot of sense, and one only needs to take a look. Interestingly enough, in the 2008 election platform, Stephen Harper talked about putting a price on pollution. That was a part of their election platform, and there are 19 Conservatives who are here today who ran on that election platform, supporting a price on pollution then. That is not to mention the 100 who are in today's chamber who campaigned on a price on pollution. They knocked on doors and literally told Canadians through their election platform that they supported a price on pollution.
All of that has been completely wiped out and forgotten across the way. Instead, they have done a complete, absolute flip-flop. They have abandoned the progressive nature of the Conservative Party, all in favour of having a bumper sticker, and the bumper sticker says, “Axe the tax”.
What do they mean when they say, “Axe the tax”? As I said at the very beginning of my comments, they are trying to give Canadians the impression that they are going to, by axing the tax, give economic benefit to Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth on that. That is absolutely and totally misleading Canadians. What they do not say is that axing the tax ruins the rebate. They would be ruining the carbon rebate. They would be destroying a program, a price on pollution policy, that makes a whole lot of sense, not only for today, but also into the future.
I get emails, and people in my riding who talk to me, about how the Conservatives are going to axe the tax. They do not have any idea of the rebate component of it. I do not know how many questions they have asked about April 1 and getting this increase on the carbon tax. They say it is a 23% increase. I think it is less than a penny a gallon. Conservatives are talking about that because they want to get Canadians upset. They want them mad. That is what they want.
An hon. member: No, that is wrong.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: No, it is right. It is less than penny a gallon. Take a look at the math oneself—
670 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:06:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I might have confused a few members across the way when I used the word “gallon” as opposed to “litre”. I used to pump gas by the gallon at 11 years old back in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and I guess that is why I got them a confused.
However, it is less than a penny a gallon from what I understand, and I think it is about three cents a litre, but the point is that, when the Conservatives talk about that increase, what they do not say is that the rebate is increasing too. Whenever there is an increase in the carbon tax, there is also an increase in the carbon rebate.
What does that really mean? When the leader of the official opposition says to Canadians, or more specifically to the people who live in Winnipeg North, the area I represent, that my constituents are going to have a higher disposable income if the Conservatives axe the tax, I say, “bull”, and members can fill in the blank on that one because that is just not true. The disposable income for 80% or more of my constituents, contrary to what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying, would go down if we were to axe the tax and trash the rebate, which is what the leader of the Conservative Party is really saying.
Anyone in Canada can take a look at their gas carbon tax and their home heating carbon tax portion, and more than 80% will find that they will be receiving more back than they actually paid into it. At the same time, they are participating in a program that will deliver a healthier environment and would ultimately allow Canada as a whole to contribute, as do many other countries around the world, whether it is France, Italy, England, parts of the United States or Mexico. There are many countries contributing. Ukraine has been raised both today and during last night's debate on that particular issue. We recognize that it is a sound policy.
Why does the Conservative Party want to continue to mislead Canadians on this particular issue? The simple answer is that it is hoping to fool Canadians, and that is it. It is a bumper sticker that sure sounds good when Conservatives say, “Axe the tax”. It sounds good, but at the end of the day, when that election time comes, Canadians will be aware of the misinformation that is being espoused by the Conservatives, through social media, in particular, virtually, on a daily basis. I will do my part in ensuring that people understand that the disposable income for a vast majority Canadians goes up. At the same time, they are contributing to a healthier environment. That is the reality. That is the truth, and that is the message that I am going to be giving to my constituents. I look forward to when the day comes for us to have that election. Hopefully, we will see Canadians, as I believe they will, not only kicking the tires but also looking into what the leader of the official opposition is saying.
Look at the environment around us. It is not just the federal government. As I said, the Province of British Columbia has its own stand-alone price on pollution. The Province of Quebec has its own price on pollution. Mexico has a price on pollution. Many American states have a price on pollution. The European Union has a price on pollution. The list goes on. England and Ireland have a price on pollution. In the House of Commons, the Liberal Party supports it, the Bloc supports it, the NDP supports it and the Green Party supports it. Erin O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative Party and was booted out of the Conservative Party leadership, supported a price on pollution. That is not to mention, as I said, every one of the Conservatives who ran in the last election supported it, but they are the ones who did the flip-flop.
My argument is that we should not ruin a sound policy that is being adopted by countries around the world because some modern day mega-Conservative leader decides to have a bumper sticker that says “Axe the tax”, hoping to fool Canadians. That would be a mistake.
733 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:15:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point. When we look at the last couple of years, the Conservative Party has had approximately 20 opposition days on the issue of the price on pollution.
The member is right in her assertion. There are many issues facing Canada that would be well served by having opposition day discussions or debate. However, that is for the opposition to ultimately determine what they want as an agenda item. They continue to want to choose this issue. Whether we have that debate today or during the next federal election, when that takes place in good time, I look forward to it. I welcome that debate.
I hope Canadians will really get engaged on the whole issue of a price on pollution and the benefits of the rebates versus the tax. I believe there is a net gain for a vast majority of Canadians.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:21:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was pumping gas at 11 years old, so it was a Canadian gallon. I believe my numbers are fairly accurate, and I appreciate the comment regarding that. I can assure the member that I had a wonderful breakfast, but I will probably miss lunch.
The point is that when we are looking at the price on pollution or the carbon tax, we are talking about a fraction of a percentage that has been attributed to it, whether it is Canada statistics or the Bank of Canada governor making that very clear. That is a false argument.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:35:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives are exploiting people's distress in the face of a situation that has been difficult, inflation and a tough economic situation. I also think that the Conservatives from Quebec are kowtowing to their leader to get ministerial positions, and that involves compromising their values and principles.
Now, Quebeckers are benefiting from the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. Since Quebec has clean energy, we have fewer corporate polluters. We therefore have fewer requests for such allowances, which means that we are able to meet the targets that we set at a lower cost.
That is why the impact of the cap-and-trade system on Quebeckers' pockets is much smaller than what we would see in the western provinces, where there is a lot of pollution. Quebeckers decided to use their environmental sovereignty to set up an effective, functional program that benefits Quebec consumers, and we intend to keep that system.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 12:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, all we are saying is that when we contribute something that is directly impacting climate change, when C02 is produced and it goes into the atmosphere, it is warming our planet whether the Conservative who is heckling me believes it or not. I am sure the member for Dufferin—Caledon is one of the climate deniers. It is a reality.
All we are saying is that we need to put a price on it, just like we put a price on garbage, just like we put a price on any other pollutant. We know that in a market-driven system, pricing something changes behaviour. It baffles me that the only political party in the Canadian House of Commons that does not understand this is the political party that somehow touts itself as being the smartest in the room when it comes to economic models and economic activity, the party that suggests that it knows better than anybody else, but cannot even understand a simple practice like pricing pollution
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 1:04:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a fact that emissions are starting to decrease, but they would decrease faster if it were not for the oil and gas sector, the sector that is predominant in the member's province and the sector his party is tied to at the hip.
There is no carbon tax. It is a price on carbon. Who said that? The Supreme Court said that. In its ruling on the Greenhouse Gas Pricing Pollution Act, it said, “there is ample evidence that the fuel and excess emission charges imposed by Parts 1 and 2 of the GGPPA have a regulatory purpose.... [They] cannot be characterized as taxes; rather, they are regulatory charges whose purpose is to advance the GGPPA’s regulatory purpose by altering behaviour.”
Why is the member contradicting the Supreme Court of Canada?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 2:25:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, during the last election campaign, the Conservative Party of Canada promised Canadians that it would implement carbon pricing. It promised Canadians that it would implement a pollution pricing system.
I would like to also remind my colleague that all he has to do is turn around and put that question to his colleague seated behind him. She was a minister in a Quebec government that fought against climate change and implemented one of the first carbon pricing systems in North America.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 2:34:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will share with you what is cruel. What is cruel is that the Conservatives would cut the carbon rebate, which is on a price on pollution. Eight out of 10 Albertans receive more money from the Canada carbon rebate than they pay at the end of the year. There is $700 more in the pockets of Albertans.
What do the Conservatives want to do? They want to cut. What will we do as Liberals? We will defend the planet. We will make sure there are good jobs, and we will make sure that life is more affordable for Albertans and all Canadians.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 2:44:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague and I both canvassed the last election indicating we were going to put a price on pollution. We did put a price on pollution. We also put in place a Canada carbon rebate, and my hon. colleague is well aware that eight out of 10 people in the country receive more than they pay. In fact, in Alberta, an average family received $450 quarterly. Why does my hon. colleague, with the Conservative Party of Canada, want to take $450 quarterly out of people's pockets?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 2:45:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Prince Edward Island are fully aware that I told them we would put a price on pollution. We also indicated we would put the Canada carbon rebate in place.
In fact, my constituents receive $220 quarterly, and that is money in their pockets. What I cannot understand is why my hon. colleague wants to take that money out of their pockets.
Farmers understand there is a problem with the environment. They also understand we have a program in place to address the environment. We will continue to do that.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 2:51:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to stand up for British Columbians on this. British Columbians led the way with a price on pollution. It was Gordon Campbell, a right-wing premier in B.C., who actually put in place the first price on pollution, led Canada and was a leader in the world.
My goodness, it is a shame to see British Columbians like that who deny the reality of climate change. I agree very much with David Eby when he says that we should stop listening to the ”baloney factory” over there.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 3:55:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a few times in the House, in response to comments colleagues across the way have made vis-à-vis the relationship between a price on pollution and food prices, I have raised that we have very clear data, including from the OECD, that tells us that Canada has the second-lowest inflation rate for food prices in the G7. That is on par with the United States, a jurisdiction that does not have a price on pollution.
I want to save my colleague, who I know will come back and say, “Well, Mr. Speaker, we don't have data because the Liberals don't track it”, some trouble, so I will get ahead of that a little bit and say that, actually, there is no data because there is no evidence to support the assertion that he and his colleagues have made in relation to food price increases and a price on pollution.
I wonder whether the member could comment on why it is that OECD data is suggesting that his position is contrary to ours.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 4:10:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague, but let us set the record straight.
First, we saw the lineups at food banks double in size. Under the Harper regime, it was awful. We can criticize the Liberals, but the Conservatives were just as bad. And on top of that, the cost of housing also doubled under the Conservatives.
The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals for things the Conservatives did, and the Liberals are criticizing the Conservatives for the same things they did. It is really just the NDP that is being sensible by introducing a variety of policies, including dental care, pharmacare and funding for housing.
I know that my colleague knows full well that in Quebec, there is a price on pollution that is different, just like in British Columbia, where the price on pollution is not regulated by the federal government.
I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The cost of food has gone up because of some CEOs. Why are the Conservatives not speaking out against these profit-boosting price increases?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 4:27:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I consider the member for Calgary Forest Lawn a friend, and I understand where he is coming from, but I humbly disagree with him, of course. In the province of Ontario, an average family of four will receive $1,120. The rural top-up will be 20%. From the Statistics Canada material that I have seen, and from what I have heard from some fellow economists, on average, that would ensure that eight out of 10 families will be better off in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Canada.
We understand that we need to put in place effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while we build a strong and inclusive economy. As many individuals would state, putting a price on pollution is really the most effective way of doing it and will account for about one-third of the emissions reductions by 2030.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 4:29:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, putting a price on pollution is the right thing to do. There are obviously different policy measures and instruments that we could put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reason we have a price on pollution is that it is a federal backstop. When some provinces, I would argue, abdicate their responsibility for a cleaner environment and a stronger economy, that is when the federal backstop kicks in. The Supreme Court has ruled that is a correct method to proceed.
I agree with the hon. member from British Columbia that we have had three elections where the price on pollution was part of the ballot for Canadians, and Canadians overwhelmingly chose a healthier environment and a stronger economy.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 4:42:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member just made my point, because cap and trade is actually a price on pollution. That is exactly the point.
In the case of Quebec, they do have a cap and trade system. In the case of Ontario, until 2018, we introduced a plan that was a cap and trade system. The mechanism is the same, which is to put a price on pollution. He could speak to any economist; in fact the economists were probably advising the member and telling him that it is the most efficient way, the most effective way to actually reduce the use of a pollutant.
They need to come up with a credible plan and not campaign on slogans. It is not going to work.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we can use all the buzzwords that we want in the world, “spike the hike” or “axe the tax” or whatever fancy words that we can come up with, but that does not lead to common sense. In fact, I am really thinking about former prime minister Brian Mulroney today. He actually was a common-sense Conservative who wanted to fight climate change. He did what was necessary and that is what we need to do today: what is necessary.
I realize that no amount of legislative action or policy is going to eliminate the hot air coming from those Conservative benches, but we do need to take action on what climate change means to Canadians. We know that we need to fight climate change. We need to better protect our communities.
You, yourself, Mr. Speaker, in your community, would have felt and understood the realities of what climate change really is and know the importance of acting now.
I am proud to be a part of a government that is working to fight climate change. We are going to do that with our pollution pricing system. That plan is working. The reality is that we are putting a price on pollution. It is the lowest-cost way to reduce pollution causing climate change. As the member opposite is aware, our system is revenue-neutral. It is well established that the cost to Canadians and the Canadian economy to achieve our emissions reduction goals by other means would be far greater.
As I alluded to earlier, while this system allows us to effectively reduce our emissions, it also makes life more affordable for Canadians by ensuring that they are receiving more money back into their pockets than they paid. Every three months we are delivering hundreds of dollars back to families through the Canada carbon rebate, which gives eight out of 10 families more back than they paid, while ensuring that big polluters are paying their fair share.
In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, a family of four will receive up to $1,800 in Canada carbon rebate amounts for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Residents of these provinces will receive their first of four quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments starting next month in April.
Our government also understands that Canadians who live in rural areas face unique challenges by having to travel longer distances for school, work, groceries, etc. That is why we are proposing, in Bill C-59, to double the rural top-up to 20% of the base rebate amount in recognition of their higher energy needs and more limited access to cleaner transportation options.
In addition, our government is continuing to implement various financial support initiatives for Canadian households. This includes support for home retrofits, energy-efficient heat pumps and electric vehicles.
Doing nothing to fight climate change is simply not an option anymore. The price to pay for inaction would be way too high and that is why we are acting. Young people in our communities tell us how they want us to continue to invest, to continue to make sure that we are fighting climate change and to make sure that all of us have an opportunity to live in a safe society and a clean society in the future.
559 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
