- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
- Liberal
- North Vancouver
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,232.65
- Government Page
- May/27/24 2:33:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that folks in the House are finally being honest. He is saying to just ignore the facts. Ignore the facts; make it all up.
At the end of the day, eight out of 10 families get more money back. Every reputable authority says that. It is only the Conservatives, who campaigned on the basis of putting in a price on pollution, have now changed their minds and have no plan for the climate except to let the planet burn, who would take a position like that.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:32:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing to see the misleading information that the hon. member puts forward. It is very clear, as 300 economists and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have said, that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. Our approach is one that addresses the existential threat of climate change and does so in a manner that is affordable for Canadians. To be honest, his constituents should be asking him, and I am sure they are, why he campaigned on putting in place a price on pollution in the last election and is now taking such a hypocritical position.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a bit of tortured logic there. This debate is supposed to be about Bill C-49, not about the price on pollution.
My hon. colleague might want to read the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a specific mechanism requiring that a province and the federal government agree on everything and that provinces introduce legislation that is exactly the same as what is going through the federal House. It is something on which we must collaborate. It is something that was attacked by Stephen Harper. It is extremely important for the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
With respect to the price on pollution, we have had this conversation many times. Provinces and territories are very capable of coming up with pricing systems that they can put in place in their jurisdictions if they think they can do it better, as Alberta does with the industrial pricing system and as British Columbia does with the retail pricing system. Provinces have flexibility.
My hon. colleague may deny the reality of climate change. He may continue to put his head in the sand and pretend that he is an ostrich. However, as I said before, at the end of the day, climate change is real. We have to take steps to address it. We have to work in a manner that will enable us to seize economic opportunities, as countries around the world are doing. The Luddite-type behaviour on that side of the House is shameful.
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 2:45:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again I would encourage my hon. colleagues across the way to stop misleading people with respect to the price on pollution. They need to look at and read the letter that was written by 300 economists across this country, who say the carbon price is the most economically efficient way to address the climate in a manner that actually addresses affordability for Canadians.
I would encourage the Conservatives to go talk to their friend Premier Smith, who said exactly that. Her family got more money back than it actually paid in the price on pollution. I would encourage them, if they are concerned about the price of gas, to go talk to Premier Smith and ask her to reduce it by 13¢. That is how much she just raised it, with no rebate whatsoever.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 2:44:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, and 300 economists across this country agree, that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back in the rebate. It is an approach that addresses affordability and does so in a manner that actually addresses climate change. I would encourage my hon. colleague across the way to talk to her Premier, who has said it is a price on pollution that actually gives her family more money back. She should go and have a conversation with Premier Smith, who just raised the price on gasoline by 13¢, with no rebate and no plan to address the climate crisis.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 2:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. friend to actually read the work that was done by 300 economists across this country, which says unequivocally that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back in the rebate than they actually pay in the price on pollution. That is addressing affordability. In fact, Premier Smith herself said she got more money back for her family than she paid.
If the member really is concerned about affordability, I would encourage him to talk to his friend Premier Smith. She just increased the gas price by 13¢; she did so with no rebate and did not account for affordability.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 2:37:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it causes me some disappointment to see an hon. colleague with whom I actually get along with very well spouting such misinformation in the House.
At the end of the day, the price on pollution is an effective way to fight climate change, but it is also a way to actually help with affordability. The PBO said that, and 300 economists across the country said that. It is a way to fight climate change but also to make life more affordable for Canadians. It is good climate policy. It is good economic policy for Canada.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 2:45:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are focused on ensuring affordability for Canadians moving forward and addressing the climate issue. The price on pollution is an affordability mechanism. Eight out of 10 families get more money back. The PBO has underlined that. Three hundred economists across this country have underlined that.
Every one of the Conservative MPs over there ran on a platform that included a price on pollution. That is the height of hypocrisy. Their only plan is to take money away from poor people and let the planet burn.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is important that people are not talking nonsense in the chamber. The Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said that he was extremely troubled by the opposition's selective use of the facts and their spin. Now 300 Canadian economists from across the country have said that the price on pollution is the best way to reduce carbon emissions in a manner that actually addresses affordability.
It is a true shame in the House that we have a climate-denying opposition, one that does not care about affordability. It is truly a shame.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 2:45:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are focused on making life more affordable for Canadians, but also on fighting climate change. The PBO and 200 economists across the country have been very clear that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. It works disproportionate to income.
Even the Conservatives actually used to know this before they got collective amnesia. Every one of the members on that side of the House ran in 2021 on a promise to put in place a price on carbon pollution. The hypocrisy that comes from that side of the House is unbelievable.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/10/24 2:46:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is saying things that are devoid of facts. What she is proposing would take money away from folks who live on modest incomes. Eight out of 10 families get more money back than they pay into the price on pollution, and it works directly inverse to income. It is those people who live on the most modest incomes who would be most impacted by their plan to cut the carbon rebate.
That would be reckless and irresponsible, and it would put at risk people who live in this country on modest incomes.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/10/24 2:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is important for this country to address the climate crisis that is facing us, and certainly Canadians understand that. There are significant costs that we are facing, including issues around wildfires as we move forward, if we do not address climate change. However, it is also important that we do that in a manner that is affordable.
Eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back from the carbon rebate than they pay in the price on pollution. If that is taken away, as the Leader of the Opposition would like to do, that would actually be attacking the poorest members in our society. Shame on them.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:50:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the whole structure of the price on pollution, as the hon. member knows, is done in a manner that creates an incentive to reduce carbon emissions but does so in a manner that is affordable for Canadians. Eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back. It works in direct proportion to income so that those who live on modest incomes are the best off with respect to carbon pricing.
Climate change is real, whether the Conservatives like to understand that or not. Their premiers, Scott Moe and Danielle Smith, have both admitted that carbon pricing is the most effective and efficient way to reduce emissions. Get with the program.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, provinces and territories can put in place their own price on pollution. That is what British Columbia has done. That is what Quebec has done. Those provinces are actually committed to fighting climate change, but the hon. member comes from a province that has no climate plan and no climate targets. The premier admits the price on pollution is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, yet he does nothing. That is a shame.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:35:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition seems so fond of Mark Carney these days, who actually, as the member says, does believe in a price on pollution. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should listen to him.
However, with respect to the premiers, it is important to know that the premiers have every right to submit a plan that actually meets the federal benchmark and to put in place their own price on pollution. That is something that British Columbia has done. That is something that Quebec has done.
Premier Moe was actually here recently and testified before the committee. Premier Moe said that he looked at alternatives to the price on pollution and found every one of them to be too expensive. This is from the guy who had no climate plan, no—
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:33:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is important for folks and for Canadians who are watching this debate to be careful about the misinformation being spewed by the Leader of the Opposition.
It is important for a responsible government in this country to have a plan to address climate change and to do so in a manner that enhances and addresses affordability concerns. That is exactly what the price on pollution does. Eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. Two hundred economists across the country agree with us.
It is such a shame that we have a bunch of climate deniers over there who have no plan for the environment and no plan for the economy.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the fundamental problem with the remade Conservative Party, where policy is based on ideology and ignores all of the facts. Two hundred economists from across this country underline that the price on pollution enhances affordability for those on modest incomes and addresses climate change in an effective manner. Even Scott Moe and Danielle Smith have said that.
These folks, these climate-denying Conservatives, sit on their hands. It is time they listened to people who actually know what they are talking about, and they should abandon their plan to simply let the planet burn.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:36:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do think it is time that the Conservative Party stopped trying to mislead Canadians. The price on pollution is an effective mechanism for reducing carbon emissions, and eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back, a fact that was underlined by 200 economists across this country who said it is the most efficient and most effective way to reduce emissions that ensures we address affordability. In fact, Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe last week said that he explored alternatives to the carbon price but he found they were too expensive. My goodness, we have been saying that for years.
103 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
- Feb/1/24 2:56:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution is an affordability measure. The vast majority of Canadians receive more money through the carbon price than what they pay. Research from the University of Calgary shows that the Conservatives' plan to cut the carbon price would only benefit the richest 1% and hurt the other 99%.
While the Conservatives are fighting to give money to the rich and take money away from those who are most vulnerable, we are building a climate plan that addresses climate change in a manner that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
