SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 103 - Sep/27/22

Sep/27/22 12:34:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to tackle a couple of things the member for Cumberland—Colchester has said. The first is around the idea that Nova Scotia put forward a plan. I am a Nova Scotia member of Parliament. I certainly respect the fact that we have a provincial government that does a lot of good things collectively between federal and provincial, but Mr. Houston did not put forward a plan. Just simply saying that we want to get to goals without having a plan on paper is not actually pricing pollution. Therefore, I take notice that it was not really a plan; it was an aspirational document. The provincial government has followed up with something in place and we will see whether that meets the federal test with respect to being able to price pollution. What I cannot understand is the fact that carbon pricing at its core is a Conservative principle of allowing the market to decide and drive innovation. Why does the member for Cumberland—Colchester want big bossy government programs to dictate how we reduce emissions as opposed to letting the market decide?

188 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Sep/27/22 12:35:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, very clearly, the programs that are being used in Nova Scotia are very effective and are in the best interest of that member's constituents as well. We really should be focused on that. We understand very clearly that we are in a cost of living crisis and that we need to do something for those Canadians. To continue to tax them to death really is not in the best interest of his constituents either. That is a sad reality. The other thing we need to understand is that we hear the government talk out of both sides of its mouth. It is asking now for technological advances from businesses, while on the other side it is wanting to tax them. Therefore, it is interfering with the free-market economy. Those two things are a really untenable position.

140 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Sep/27/22 12:36:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. If there is one thing the Conservatives are very good at, it is creating a diversion. They think that eliminating the carbon tax or the carbon tax increase will solve the whole inflation problem. The 70% figure quoted by the experts applies to inflation all over the world. To be precise, this means that the increase in inflation is not just due to the carbon tax, but is linked to the pandemic and current economic conditions, including the repercussions of the war in Ukraine. The Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete solutions, such as targeting certain industries and helping low-income people, including seniors. I have a solution of my own to offer, because we also know that the Conservative Party is the champion of budget efficiency. It cost about $23 billion to buy Trans Mountain. Would my colleague be willing to sell the pipeline to help people who are genuinely in need?

167 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Sep/27/22 12:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to understand clearly is that adding more fuel to the inflationary fire is really not going to make this situation any better for average Canadians. It is also important that we do understand the plight of Canadians and that we understand that our transition away from fossil fuels, and there will be one, will be long and difficult. When we look at the number of cars that are on the road today, there is no viable way to take an internal combustion engine and turn it into an electric vehicle. My question would be how we would do that quickly and effectively, and using a carbon tax that has not been proven to reduce emissions at all really seems like a silly way to continue and it is damaging the financial position of Canadians.

142 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Sep/27/22 12:38:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, noticeably missing from the debate today is any talk of climate change in the north. In Nunavut, housing investments are missing, tundra is melting and infrastructure is not climate resilient. Why do the Conservatives continue to stand up for massive profits of corporate oil and gas, rather than support the taxation that is involved and needed to fight climate change?

62 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Sep/27/22 12:39:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that large corporations can be exempt from this carbon tax. To me, that really does not make any sense. We know that the cost of living crisis is hitting northern communities particularly hard. Continuing to increase their cost of fuel and the delivery of goods is going to be a significant hardship for those in the north, and we need to put those Canadians first.

70 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Sep/27/22 12:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Davenport this afternoon. I am pleased to rise to speak to the Conservative opposition motion before us today. I want to say on the record that I love opposition days, which give us the opportunity to debate and talk at length about policy with our colleagues. The motion before us today reads, and I quote: ...given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax. I take exception to the claim that carbon pricing is a tax. Merriam-Webster defines a tax as a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions. In my view, this is a program designed to set a price on carbon with all proceeds being reinvested, not used for government programs. It is therefore not a tax in the traditional sense of the word. It is important, because on this side of the House we talk about pricing pollution and pricing carbon. That is essentially what we are doing. The Conservative Party obviously talks about it as a tax, but a tax, in a general sense, is for the general collection of government revenues. It is not often recognized by my opposition friends that the way in which the federal backstop program actually works is it returns the revenue that is collected. Yes, that is a collection on a macro level and there can be a differentiation between households and businesses, but that is the whole idea. We are trying to price a negative externality that is associated with GHG emissions, because this is about climate. I know that affordability is a top-of-mind issue. No one on this side of the House would disagree, but at the same time, what I have not heard in the conversations this morning, particularly from His Majesty's loyal opposition, is much conversation about a real plan to reduce emissions. We have to take those two conversations hand in hand. I did ask in my question for the member for Cumberland—Colchester why the Conservative Party was against a core Conservative principle, and that is that this government takes the view that we want to put a price on carbon, such that there is a market incentive for changed behaviour for businesses and individuals to be able to adjust accordingly. This is what I find ironic about the Conservative position. Notwithstanding that, I have not heard much at all about climate in the couple of weeks since the member for Carleton has become the official opposition leader. Nor have I heard much of an alternative. It seems like we are going to rely on technology. Therefore, how is the government going to incentivize the private sector to take on that technology? Is it going to be through government subsidies? Is it going to be through a regulatory model? There is not much conversation on what that holds. At the core of what we are talking about in carbon pricing is setting that price to change behaviour and draw investment from the private sector to make some of those technological innovations, which it seems the Conservative Party perhaps thinks will be done out of the goodness of one's heart without an actual economic model to do so. It is important to recognize that economists and organizations around the world recognize that carbon pricing is the cheapest way to reduce emissions. I recognize that the member for Carleton certainly has a level of distrust against international organizations. We have seen that with the World Economic Forum in the way that he has criticized that organization. I do not know if that extends to the OECD, but the OECD does recognize carbon pricing in this domain. It is yet to be seen what the Conservative Party's take is on that view. Instead of allowing the market to decide, incentivizing individual households, businesses and the economy, the Conservatives want to have, again as I mentioned in my question, big bossy government programs. They want government, at a large macro level, to intervene as opposed to driving private sector innovation and ingenuity. I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why the Conservative Party does not understand or believe this is a principle that can be used to reduce emissions. Again, let us remember why this is being done. It is being done in the context that we have a climate emergency. We have to be able to reduce emissions. We were in the House last night talking about hurricane Fiona and I was very careful not to make those two connections, because we wanted to ensure the debate was really about providing support to Atlantic Canadians. Although the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake was on record as saying that climate and hurricanes had no connection, which I was appalled to hear as I watched the debate from my hotel room. There is a connection. The frequency of these storms is tied to the work we have to do on climate. The Conservative Party, in one breath, seemed to talk about that yesterday, and then it has comes up with no real tangible solutions in its motion today. I would also like to challenge the part of the motion on home heating. In my region, Atlantic Canada, there is no carbon tax levied on home heating because the provinces have introduced their own carbon pricing systems. Therefore, this motion would have little effect in Atlantic Canada at this time. This government recognizes that it is imperative to focus on both affordability and emission reductions at the same time. That is precisely why we have put in place a $250-million program to help low-income residents move away from using oil to heat their homes. A total of $120 million from this program will be earmarked for the Atlantic provinces. I want to make sure I am on the record saying that I am proud of the way our Atlantic caucus advocated for that specific program. There are a lot of Atlantic Canadians who still use home heating oil to warm their homes, and this money is going to go directly to support their transition in order to make sure we can avoid the volatility of their energy bills, which we have seen in the global market on home heating oil. I also want to say it is very clear that the Conservatives are taking a complete opposition to carbon pricing. It is very clear for most in this House that there is very little in the way of tangible offerings on what else they would do. I take notice that it is not just carbon pricing that can reduce emissions. I agree that it needs to be a whole, full approach with other elements as well, but we do not hear anything from them. I do not even hear the Conservatives proposing to make amendments. It has been three years or four years since the government introduced its backstop formula. Instead of having concrete questions on how we could improve and amend that formula, they simply say they do not believe in this, without providing any alternatives. Yes, Canadians are concerned about affordability. We are as well. They also care and want a government that is serious about tackling climate change. It needs to be part of it. It cannot be one or the other; it needs to be both at the same time. There are two more things. The Conservatives will talk about technology and working with large companies to be able to reduce emissions. That is all well and good. They do not recognize that those policies would come with costs to consumers as well. The entire idea of the federal backstop is to return revenues to households so we can incentivize individuals to make a change. There is very little recognition from the Conservatives that their vague policy statements or lack of a plan, whatever it may be, would come with its own inherent costs. There is never a recognition from that side. On affordability, last week this government introduced two different measures I hope all members in this House will support. They are the doubling of the GST rebate, along with dental care and housing affordability. These are measures the government is focused on. We do not want to compromise on reducing emissions. In fact, we want to help people make a transition so we can both reduce emissions and support affordability at the same time. The Conservatives have a view that it needs to be one or the other. We have a view, on this side, that it needs to be both at the same time. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

1522 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC)

Sep/27/22 12:49:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member said he has not heard anything from Conservatives. I would suggest he has not been listening. I commend to him the speech of the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition this morning, in which he talked very clearly about alternatives to simply tripling the carbon tax. I want to talk about my own home province of British Columbia, which has had a carbon tax for a number of years. Emissions have continued to go up. It is the least affordable jurisdiction in North America when it comes to energy prices. The price for gasoline was $2.40 a litre in British Columbia this week. People who live in British Columbia will be happy to know that when they involuntarily need to send money to Ottawa and Victoria, that is a pricing pollution mechanism. It is a market incentive for changed behaviour. What changed behaviour does this member have for my rural constituents who need to drive pickups to get to work to serve our communities, and for the farmers who need to drive tractors to produce the food we eat? What market incentive for changed behaviour is he proposing for them?

196 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Sep/27/22 12:50:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague started by saying that the Conservatives had a lot of different options on the table to reduce emissions, and that the member for Carleton had mentioned them, yet he then spoke for the next 45 seconds without providing one single example of what the Conservative Party would actually do. As it relates to the federal backstop, which is not in play in his home province of British Columbia, and indeed the parliamentary secretary is on record less than an hour ago, talking about the success of carbon pricing in reducing emissions in British Columbia, he might want to take up carbon pricing with the British Columbia government if he has an issue. On the federal backstop, there is a provision to help support rural residents, recognizing that there are not as many opportunities for them to change behaviour. Whether that 10% is adequate is a conversation that could be had, but I do not even hear him making reasonable arguments on that. He simply says that they have solutions, without proposing any.

177 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Sep/27/22 12:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about housing affordability as if the government were very active on this front and the measures it is putting in place were working well. However, I would like to remind the House that earlier this year a Scotiabank report stated that 3.5 million units will have to be built in Canada over the next 10 years just to address the current crisis. According to a report from the National Housing Council, only 35,000 new homes were built and 60,000 were renovated under the national housing strategy launched in 2017. That is roughly 100,000 units over the past five years. There are five years left in this national strategy, but there is a need for 3.5 million housing units in Canada over the next 10 years, including 1.1 million in Quebec alone. Where are those measures?

151 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Sep/27/22 12:52:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused. I understand that housing is a very important issue. If I understood the interpretation correctly, my colleague's question was entirely on housing. However, today, the debate on the opposition motion is on the carbon tax. The Government of Canada will work with all the provinces and territories, including Quebec and, of course, the members of the sovereignist party. I expect the Government of Quebec will propose some solutions. Why does my hon. colleague think that the federal government has to provide the entire solution? That is my opinion in answer to his comments.

101 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Sep/27/22 12:53:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, corporate profits are rising twice as fast as inflation. Meanwhile, wages for workers are rising only half as quickly. The government insists on saying that it is there for workers, yet it will not impose the excess profit tax on big CEOs who are profiting. Other countries are doing that. Why will the Liberals not do the same thing and be on the side of workers?

68 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Sep/27/22 12:53:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the opposition parties, because today's conversation is about carbon pricing, and members had an opportunity to ask questions in relation to that. It seems very clear from my position that the NDP is going down the path of corporate profits and complete and total class warfare. We have seen that happen. It is clear that the government expects higher-income Canadians to pay more. We have introduced taxes in that regard. We have introduced taxes on the banking and insurance sector. Perhaps there is more work to be done, but the narrative and tone that is coming from the NDP is not a constructive conversation to be had. It is unfortunate.

120 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

Sep/27/22 12:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always it is a true pleasure for me to rise in this venerable House to speak to the opposition motion on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. I would like to state that I agree with neither the premise of the Conservative motion before us today nor the ask of the motion. Our federal government is doing all it can to support our most vulnerable in Canada and those most impacted by inflation and the rising costs of living. I am also a firm believer in carbon pricing and that the federal government needs to continue to move as urgently as possible to meet its Paris Accord targets and its net-zero target by 2015. Climate change is accelerating faster than has been predicted and it would be the height of irresponsibility for the federal government, indeed any level of government in any province or territory across Canada, to slow down its efforts toward achieving net zero by 2015. If anything, we need to double down on our efforts and be very clear in showing our progress to Canadians. Let me speak a bit more to the issue of the rising costs of living in Canada. It is indeed a serious concern. As we well know, the pandemic has caused financial challenges and uncertainty for many Canadians. We also know that inflation, a global phenomenon that is a lingering result of the pandemic and exacerbated by worldwide events, is making life harder for a lot of Canadians. The job market is very strong and businesses are doing well, but we also know that despite this, it is harder for a lot of Canadians to pay their bills at the end of the month. That is why the federal government support programs continue to be so important. We have an affordability plan that includes many important measures. This is support to the most vulnerable people in our communities, to help them at a time when the cost of living is a real challenge for many Canadians. For example, the enhanced Canada worker benefit puts up to $2,400 more into the pockets of low-income families, starting this year. This results in more than $1.7 billion in new support this year alone, and it will make life more affordable for our lowest-paid workers. We have also increased old age security by 10% for seniors 75 and older, which will provide up to an additional $800 for more than three million seniors over the first year. We have signed agreements on early learning and child care with every single province and territory. This is to achieve the goal of an affordable universal system of early learning and child care, so that every mother who wants to go to work has the comfort of knowing that her children are being well cared for and well taught. Furthermore, benefits including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are indexed to inflation, as is the federal minimum wage, which we increased to $15 an hour and indexed to inflation, making it now $15.55 an hour. Just last week, the federal government tabled two important pieces of legislation to address commitments we have made. Bill C-30 would double the goods and services tax credit for six months. This would provide 2.5 billion more dollars in additional targeted support to the roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors. Single Canadians without children would receive an extra $234, and couples with two children would receive an extra $467 this year alone. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average. The proposed extra GST credit amounts would be paid through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump-sum payment before the end of the year. Bill C-31 would enact two important measures: the Canada dental benefit and a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. The Canada dental benefit would be provided to families with income under $90,000 who do not have access to dental insurance, starting this year. Direct payments totalling up to $1,300 over the next two years would be provided to cover dental care expenses for each child under 12 years old. This is the first stage of the federal government's plan to deliver dental coverage for families with adjusted net income under $90,000. It would allow children under 12 to receive the dental care they need while the government works to develop a comprehensive national dental care program. The one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit would deliver a $500 payment to 1.8 million renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. This more than doubles the federal government's budget 2022 commitment, reaching twice as many Canadians as initially promised. The federal benefit will be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families or below $20,000 for individuals who pay at least 30% of their adjusted net income on rent. These pieces of legislation represent the latest suite of measures to support Canadians with the rising cost of living. I am proud of how our federal government is being thoughtful and deliberate about how we are supporting Canadians who are most in need, while also being very conscious about not unleashing too much new spending so as to worsen current levels of inflation. Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of attending a number of events in my riding. I heard from many parents who were very anxious to have their day care operators sign on to the federal national day care plan so that they can save 50% of their costs per child by the end of this year. I also heard from low-income seniors who are really happy to hear about the dental care benefit. While this year they will not benefit from it, as it is only available to children in households of $90,000 or less and if they are under the age of 12, they are very excited about the prospect of being able to access it by the end of next year. It will be a lifeline for many. On the topic of housing, as it has been said many times in this House, the federal government made a significant commitment in budget 2022 to double the number of new homes that we will build over the next 10 years. The federal government, provinces and territories, cities and towns, the private sector and non-profits are all pulling together to build the homes a growing country needs. The federal government's affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the Canadians who need it most, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation. Many of the most vulnerable Canadians are receiving more financial support now than they did last year, and they will continue to receive new support in the weeks and months to come. I would be remiss to not thank the opposition for bringing up the subject of climate change. Climate action is an economic necessity. The global economy is changing, and the future economic growth will be more and more dependent on clean energy. It is no longer up for debate that a national price on pollution is the most effective market incentive for climate action, and Canada's climate action incentive puts more money into the pockets of eight out of every 10 families in Canada. Budget 2022 included climate action measures ranging from a new Canada growth fund, which will help attract the investments we need to build a cleaner and more prosperous Canada, to an innovation and investment agency, which will help our traditional industries thrive in a changing global economy and our small businesses continue to grow and create good middle-class jobs. The federal government understands that many Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. The targeted support programs I have mentioned offer real help to the most vulnerable, are fiscally responsible and will not further fuel inflation. In addition, we will continue to put a price on pollution. The federal government will continue to urgently implement the many measures we have announced over the last almost seven years, and we will ensure that we meet our Paris accord targets and our net-zero targets by 2050. Our ability to live, our quality of life, our future depends on us accelerating our fight against climate change and not stopping, as the Conservatives are asking us to do.

1464 words

All Topics

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Sep/27/22 1:04:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether to thank our hon. colleague for her speech or to laugh at it. It is frustrating because I hear from Canadians and constituents almost every day in my riding who are saying loud and clear that they cannot afford this government any longer, whether it is a farmer who has been hit by the Liberal fertilizer policies, a fisher who has been hit by Liberal fisheries policies or a logger in the natural resource sector, which has been hard hit by this Liberal government. They continue to wage war on Canadians. What does this member have to say to my constituents who say that they simply cannot afford another term of the current Liberal government?

122 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Sep/27/22 1:05:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know it is a tough time for many Canadians. I had the absolute pleasure of attending five events on Saturday, and the vast majority of people who came and spoke to me said they were very thankful for the many measures that our federal government is putting into place. I mentioned two of them already in my speech. That national child care program is going to reduce their cost by 50% by the end of this year. It is a game-changer for them and it will absolutely help them with the rising costs we are seeing today, as well as the dental care program. I would like to respond to the hon. member with something that one of my colleagues said in a speech recently. In terms of the climate incentive, we do have a federal backstop and it does provide 10% of additional support to rural and small businesses that need to have additional support around the rising costs they are seeing today.

168 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Sep/27/22 1:06:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am still taken aback. Since this morning, I have been listening to my Liberal friends brag about their record on fighting climate change. In Quebec, there is a group called Mothers Step. I have met with them several times, since they have a satellite office in my riding, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. These mothers are worried. I would like to read part of their manifesto to my colleague: We are mothers, grandmothers and allies who are standing behind the calls made by scientists and echoed by our children for a collective response to the climate emergency. According to the IPCC, if we want to prevent global warming of 1.5°C or a catastrophic degradation of our climate, we need to cut emissions by a minimum of 45% over 2010 levels by 2030 and to be carbon neutral by 2050. That is why in 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recommended closing the door to all new fossil fuel supply projects. The government did not do that. What does my colleague have to say about this demand from Mothers Step In?

185 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Sep/27/22 1:07:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I truly thank the hon. member for his concern. Before entering politics, I was a climate activist. I can assure members that I very deliberately joined the Liberal team because they were serious about climate action. We have spent over $100 billion on over 100 actions, trying to reduce our emissions nationally and stepping up to make sure we meet our Paris accord targets and meet our target of net zero by 2050. The Secretary-General of the United Nations did indicate that our world is in peril. It is paralyzed and we are gridlocked in a colossal global dysfunction. It is important for all of us to share our best ideas on how we can accelerate and make sure that we meet our net-zero target by 2050.

131 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Sep/27/22 1:08:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the UN General Assembly last week, the UN Secretary-General actually called on the countries to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies. In fact, they are making a record profit as we speak: $147 billion just this year alone. Will the member support the call of the UN Secretary-General to impose a windfall tax, as the NDP has been calling on the government to do?

71 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Sep/27/22 1:08:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we absolutely are increasing and permanently raising the corporate income tax by 1.5% on Canada's largest and most profitable banks and insurance companies. We have also introduced a recovery dividend of 15% on excess profits at these institutions during the COVID pandemic. We are always looking for the best ideas and I think we always should have additional considerations as we look to provide more incentives to reach our 2050 targets of net zero.

78 words