44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2024 02:00PM
- Apr/17/24 3:03:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed, in fact, that six out of 10 Canadians pay more in carbon tax than they get back in rebates. One hundred per cent of middle-class or middle-quintile Canadians pay more in tax than they get back, with it being especially bad for rural and suburban Canadians.
Now, we have two-year highs in gas prices all across Ontario. Ontarians are being punished because of a 23% carbon tax. They can thank the Prime Minister every time they fill up the tank. Why will he not axe the tax so that Ontarians can afford to drive to work?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 3:03:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Ontario is an excellent example of a jurisdiction that chose to move forward with its own cap-and-trade system so that it would not be subject to the federal carbon-pricing backstop. It was the choice of a Conservative premier to scrap the carbon-pricing system that they had and to take on the federal carbon-pricing backstop, but that is not all bad because that actually puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Ontarian families, which is something that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed repeatedly.
We are fighting climate change and putting more money back in people's pockets.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons passed Bill C-234. Normally, that is not a remarkable statement, but it bears repeating for comprehension. The House of Commons, made up of 338 elected members of Parliament to democratically legislate the laws of Canada, passed Bill C-234. That bill was a private member's bill to remove the carbon tax from farmers so that the thousands of dollars in unrebated carbon taxes that every farmer pays will no longer have to be built into the price of food.
During a crisis of food affordability and food inflation, this is a common-sense way to do something immediate and concrete to help farmers produce affordable food for Canadians. The elected members of Parliament passed this bill over the objection of the governing Liberals. It was sent to the Senate where the same legislative process takes place, but during this process and at the clear and obvious behest of the Prime Minister and his government, the Senate gutted the bill by removing heating fuels for barns from the bill. They wanted to kill the bill altogether, but the government's extraordinary lobbying efforts succeeded in gutting the bill by ensuring that the carbon tax still applies to heating buildings like barns. This adds an enormous cost to the production of food, particularly the cost of eggs, chicken, pork and dairy.
Axing the tax on food production would be a simple way to address inflation on food, which continues to rise even faster than the general rate of inflation, and along with the staggering cost of rent and mortgage payments, it puts the greatest pressure on the most vulnerable Canadians, people whose entire family budgets cannot cover the cost of food and shelter.
I asked the government, after a desperate weekend of panic-stricken phone calls, which resulted in the Senate gutting the bill, if the Prime Minister would listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families who want to heat their homes. I mentioned first nations in my question because first nations are challenging the federal government's authority to impose the carbon tax on them. I mentioned farmers, who are price takers and who only have so much room to pass on higher costs without simply having to shut down production, and consumers who have to pay more for food. The response was an insipid mix of unrelated nonsense talking points.
Since that time, the government House leader has pathetically and falsely tried to blame the Conservatives for the failure of Bill C-234 passing in the House again, ignoring the entire reason, or pretending not to know why, the bill is back here in this place. It is here because the government's senators are doing the bidding of the Prime Minister who appointed them and are gutting the bill.
The Conservative deputy whip offered a motion to pass the bill by unanimous consent in its original form, but the Liberals refused to do that, so I will ask them again: Will they respect the will of this elected House? Will they recognize the roles that the Prime Minister and his ministers played in begging and bullying senators into rejecting a bill passed by the elected members of this chamber? Will they realize, as an overwhelming number of Canadians, including most provincial and territorial premiers have, that the carbon tax is punishing people who just want to eat, to heat and to transport themselves? Do they not see that when a basic input like energy is made more expensive, the output is reduced, which leads to higher prices? If they will not axe the carbon tax altogether, will they at least agree to axe the tax on farmers so that they can bring down the price of groceries?
633 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 7:21:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge that putting a price on pollution is at the centre of our government's plan to fight climate change and to curb its devastating effects on our communities and our economy.
The negative impacts of climate change are very real. The public will not soon forget the destructive force of last year's forest fires that scorched much of Canada and choked our communities, which were cloaked in thick smoke.
It would be irresponsible of us to stand idly by instead of proposing solutions to deal with our rapidly changing climate. Standing still is unacceptable. We must act. Our efforts are not just to benefit our generation, they are to protect future generations of Canadians, our children and their children.
Our government is taking necessary steps that will have effective, concrete impacts, and a vital part of this plan is Canada's price on pollution. Pollution has a cost. It has a cost for Canadians, for communities, for our health and for our economy. Applying a price on carbon pollution is widely recognized as one of the most efficient ways to reduce emissions and to fight the devastating effects of climate change.
Our mechanism also ensures that the price on pollution stays affordable for Canadians. We sometimes hear, especially in the House, that putting a price on pollution costs Canadians too much. I can assure the House that this statement is completely false. In fact, in provinces where the federal pollution pricing system applies, people get back the lion's share of the revenues, and low-income earners benefit the most.
This means that our system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families while encouraging choices that will help Canada lower its emissions. Our price on pollution ensures that eight out of 10 households in these provinces are receiving more money back through quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay. Thanks to our government's pollution price mechanism, a family of four living in one of these provinces can receive up to $1,800. As people can see, with our plan, we are not only fighting climate change, but we are also returning money to Canadians.
The government does not keep any direct proceeds from federal pollution pricing. Instead, the government returns the money collected to households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. International experts agree that our pollution pricing mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change.
With this approach, we are sending a clear message: Pollution has a price. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages reduction across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. To achieve this, we need to maintain the price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. Removing pollution pricing, as the opposition has called for, would eliminate its powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to change their behaviours and pollute less.
518 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 7:37:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I really dive into the substance of my question here today, I want to give a quick shout-out to the U13 boys' hockey league champions from the Southwest Saskatchewan Hockey League.
I was fortunate enough to coach my son's hockey team this year. The story starts like this: I was in a classroom in Mossbank back in September, talking to the students there. It turned out that half of the kids I talked to were on the hockey team that won our league, so I congratulate the Wood River Flyers on winning the Southwest Saskatchewan Hockey League. I give a big shout-out to Devin Smith, Jesse Packet, Kipton Tremblay, Grayson Eisen, Ashton Clermont, Lawson Layman, Ryder Tallon, Alex Jolly, Griffin DeWulf, Jon Jennett, Cole Masse, Austin Pritchard, Carson Crooks, Kyle Batty, Turner Tallon, Grady Crooks and, of course, their head coach, Dustin DeWulf. A big congratulations to them on a great year and a job well done.
Back in December, I had the opportunity to ask the government about the carbon tax. This is a topic that is not going away anytime soon. When I talk to people back home, particularly at this time of year, April, the farmers are itching to get going in the fields. They see the costs and the effects of the carbon tax right up front, because farmers back home are price-takers. They do not get to pass costs on to anybody, at least not back home. There are other farmers in greenhouses who grow produce and are able to pass on some of those costs; that is a whole other issue.
I am going to focus more on the grain farmers that I have back home today. They have to pay the carbon tax on their trucking, as they are still waiting for the grain drying bill to pass. There are a lot of things they still have to pay it on. If they want to get fertilizer shipped out to their farm, they have to pay the carbon tax on that. They have to absorb that price. They cannot pass that cost on to anybody else, so they are paying for it.
They also do not get to sell their crop to anybody. There is a global price that is set on their crop. They have to buy their machinery, their crops and their inputs, then grow the crops and harvest them. Therefore, they are price-takers. There are some exemptions for on-farm usage, but that does not cover the cost associated with many other activities. That is what we are trying to get the attention of the government for.
However, there is another element to the carbon tax that the government continues not to address. That is the issue of municipalities and towns. I gave the example previously of the Town of Shaunavon, for instance, which is going to have an 8% or 9% property tax increase for it to cover the costs of the carbon tax alone. The City of Swift Current will have an increase of multiple percentage points on property taxes to cover the carbon tax.
The Town of Kindersley has a fairly new hockey rink, built in the last 10 years. It just recently built a brand new aquatic centre. To run just those two facilities, it is paying $12,000 a month in carbon tax. The costs are exorbitant. That cost goes directly back to the ratepayers, so the same ratepayers who are paying the carbon tax on their gas, groceries and home heating are also paying it on the increases in their property tax; they have to pay the costs that the Town of Kindersley has to pay on these buildings.
There is no rebate that covers that. This is yet another layer to the carbon tax that people are getting gouged on, and the government continues to refuse to do anything about it.
656 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been through a lot in the past five years, and many are struggling with the cost of living. We have heard numerous calls to scale back the carbon pricing system in response, but carbon pricing is not the problem. It is designed to help families through the Canada carbon rebate, which will help lower- and middle-income households most of all. That is why a pause on carbon pricing simply will not help families keep life affordable.
As the Governor of the Bank of Canada explained, the price on carbon contributes only 0.15 percentage points to inflation per year, a tiny portion of the high inflation we have been experiencing. Economists estimate that carbon pricing increased the cost of food by 0.33%. Once again, that is a small portion of what we have all been dealing with in recent months.
The main reason for that is that farmers are already exempt from the carbon tax for most of their activities. Bill C‑234 is simply not going to change things for households that are dealing with higher grocery prices, and it is false to suggest that it would.
It stands to reason that carbon pricing is not causing inflation. Inflation is something that is happening all over the world, including in many countries that do not have a carbon tax.
The real causes are events like the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 crisis and Russia's war in Ukraine driving energy prices up. Canada's price on pollution is designed to protect Canadians from any price increases it does cause. All direct proceeds from pricing carbon pollution under the federal system are returned to the jurisdiction in which they were collected.
More than 90% of fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to individuals and households through the Canada carbon rebate. They are distributed via cheque or direct bank deposit every three months, and eight out of 10 families in provinces where the federal system applies receive more money back than they pay.
We cannot deny the devastating effects of climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. We would just be wasting time in the global race to find carbon-neutral solutions. The effects of climate change cost Canadian households $720 a year, and this figure will rise to $2,000 a year by 2050. Climate change also costs lives and impacts the physical and mental health of millions.
We need to listen to youth, our communities and our businesses. Choosing the easy path now will force us all to take a harder path later, and that is not an option.
439 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/24 7:45:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing is one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce pollution, since it sends a signal across the economy. It gives every household and business an incentive to find ways to reduce pollution, but it leaves them the flexibility to decide when and how to take action.
That is why pollution pricing alone helps achieve one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that we need in order to do our part and mitigate the worst effects of climate change. It is a key pillar of any serious climate plan.
Modelling by Environment and Climate Change Canada shows that Canada's emissions in 2021 would have been 18 metric tonnes higher without carbon pricing, which had already been implemented for two years.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
