SoVote

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

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Sep/27/22 3:57:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha is also the Conservative critic for tourism. I am the NDP critic for tourism and here we are on World Tourism Day. I thought I would point that out. This whole debate around the carbon tax, as if it is what is driving up the price of gas, Canadians are rightfully concerned about it. I was just in Vancouver and the price of gas was $2.33 a litre, and 11¢ of that is carbon tax. The big increase over the last year of a dollar came a bit from the world price on oil and mostly from greed. It is mostly from big oil and gas companies seeing an opportunity when world oil prices went up and inflating that price many times over. The NDP is the only party here that I see proposing a real solution to that, and that is taxing that greed and putting a windfall tax on big oil and gas companies so that we can create funding for all the good things that the member mentioned.

181 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Sep/27/22 3:59:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, happy World Tourism Day. I thank my hon. colleague for pointing that out. When we look at tripling the carbon tax, there is still no justification. There is no logic behind that. Why are we not investing in the technology? There are solutions. Forty cents a litre of gas on top of what we are already paying is just not achievable. Canadians are hanging on by a thread. If we really want to look at our future, our mental health crisis and this opioid and addiction crisis, we need to take care of what is in Canadians' bank accounts and give them the ability to buy food and afford groceries.

112 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Sep/27/22 3:59:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. Here we are, once again, debating this concept of a price on pollution. Like the member for Winnipeg North said a few moments ago on a question that he had, the Conservatives are just flip-flopping back and forth on this issue repeatedly. It is like Groundhog Day when we get here to discuss the price on pollution. I am going to read something for us. This is a proposal and it is called the “Personal Low Carbon Savings Account”: Canada’s Conservatives will work with the provinces to implement an innovative, national, Personal Low Carbon Savings Account.... Canadians will pay into their Personal Low Carbon Savings Account each time they buy hydrocarbon-based fuel. They will be able to apply the money in their account towards things that help them live a greener life. That could mean buying a transit pass or a bicycle, or saving up and putting the money towards a new efficient furnace, energy efficient windows or even an electric vehicle. This is from the 2021 platform that the Conservative Party of Canada ran under. Here we are, just around a year since that election, and once again Conservatives are back to railing against this idea of pricing pollution, when all of the members who sit in the House ran on this very platform with the words that I just read out to us. They ran on the idea of pricing pollution. We get to this place and, once again, Conservatives are trying to suggest that pricing pollution is not the solution, trying to play, in my opinion, to the lowest common denominator here, to enrage people in order to get them to react in a certain way to government policy, but it is policy that they agree with. It is policy that 14 out of the 31 OECD countries agree with. Pricing pollution is the solution to dealing with carbon. It is very simple. It is just about saying that it is not free to pollute. It is just like when one is manufacturing a product and one has waste that is produced out of the product. If we take that waste, what do we do with it? Sometimes we can recycle it if we are lucky. Sometimes we can recycle it at a premium and we are actually making money, but sometimes we have to pay to recycle it. Sometimes we have to pay to put it in a landfill. It is the exact same concept. We heard members from across the way, earlier today, talking about a market mechanism or trying to influence the way that people make consumer decisions. Well, it is also the way that corporations make decisions. I will point out to us that this is not just about individuals making decisions. Umicore is going to be breaking ground just outside of Kingston, actually in a Conservative riding, the riding of the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington. This will be the largest battery manufacturing plant in North America for electric vehicles. They are set to break ground in 2023 and be fully into production by 2025. The Prime Minister came to the announcement of that opening back in the summer of this year. Who was there? The member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, a Conservative member, who was so excited to see this new opportunity in her riding, as she should be. What I found really interesting though is that the question was asked of the CEO of Umicore as to why they had picked Loyalist, which is right outside Kingston, instead of the other options. Another option was Detroit, Michigan, and there was another location in the States. They were debating and deciding among this short list of locations. The president for Umicore said that one of the defining reasons why they chose Ontario and, in particular, Loyalist was that they were a company that was producing a sustainable product and they wanted to make sure that sustainable resources went into the sustainable product that they were making. Because the vast majority of their production is done with electricity, they knew that the electricity in Ontario was cleaner than the electricity in the other two locations they had to choose from. Now we are seeing corporations making decisions based on sustainability. It is no longer an issue of just individuals talking about making the smart, green, energy-efficient choices. It is about corporations investing and saying they want to go and be located where they have access to energy that is not produced in an environmentally unfriendly way. I go back to the point that we have been through three elections now in which we have been talking about this. In 2015, we ran on the idea of pricing pollution. We were elected and we implemented the idea. Conservatives railed against it. In 2019, the electorate had the opportunity to weigh in on that legislation. The electorate decided that it was in favour of seeing through pricing pollution, because we know that the majority of the parties in this House support pricing pollution. What happened in 2021? The Conservatives kind of came around and the previous leader, the member for Durham, said that they seemed to be losing the war on this front and perhaps people are in favour of pricing pollution and do not think it should be free, so he put it in their platform. He said they would run on this concept and tweak it a bit to be more like a rewards program, which is what they did, but they still ran on it. Still the electorate said no, the Conservatives' half-baked kind of pricing scheme that they were proposing was not good enough and the electorate was going to stick with the plan that had already been put in place and adopted. Here we are, years later, five or six years into this since the legislation passed, and we are still debating this. We have been through multiple elections since then. I cannot understand why the Conservatives continually rail against this. I heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester talk earlier today about letting provinces determine their own fate instead of forcing these schemes on them. That is exactly the point. The whole point is that we have set standards. This was done back in 2017 when the legislation passed. We said we were going to establish standards and that if the provinces' own programs met those standards then they did not have to have the federal government's backstop. In fact, many provinces and territories meet the standards, including British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. All of these provinces meet the standard and do not have the federal backstop of pricing pollution. Some of the provinces are somewhat there, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and the balance do not have anything in place and therefore needed that federal government backstop. It is a way to be equitable across the country and all provinces and territories with regard to how aggressive we have to be on this, but it is about letting provinces determine their own path, providing they can meet those requirements. That is exactly what we have seen. For the member for Cumberland—Colchester to somehow suggest that this is not in the provinces' hands is just disingenuous. One of the things that Conservatives routinely leave out of this debate is the fact that, yes, the price of carbon will go up, but the rebate also goes up. That is why this is a market mechanism. That is why this is not a tax. It was never intended to be a tax. It was always intended to be a market mechanism to encourage decision-making, not just among individuals but also among corporation stakeholders, away from carbon emissions and toward cleaner and more environmentally sustainable options that could in turn produce a cleaner economy for us. Therefore, it is extremely important that when we have this discussion and when we talk about this, we need to remind people that the rebate goes up as well. I would remind members that the rebate in particular will be going, primarily because of the decisions that are made in terms of the purchasing, to those individuals who need it the most. That is what we have seen and that is what the data supports. We know that ensuring that we are providing that money back will continue to ensure that people have options to pollute less by making the decisions they make. It goes without saying that I will be voting against this opposition motion. We are well beyond this discussion. We have had it a number of times before and we have had three elections on this, including one in which the Conservatives supported pricing pollution.

1492 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Sep/27/22 4:09:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have more a comment than a question. I learned long ago to never argue with a fool because they will never know when I am right. The Liberal platform in 2019 spoke about a carbon tax that was going to be about $50 a tonne. Surprisingly, just a year after that, the Liberals announced that they were going to raise that up to $170 a tonne, which is almost a fivefold increase. At a time when Canadians can least afford it because of inflation and the affordability crisis, here they are raising carbon taxes again. We are saying, give Canadians a break right now and give Canadians a break in the future from an affordability standpoint. Young people are neither fearful nor anxious. They are despondent right now, because they do not feel like they have hope for a prosperous future.

144 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Sep/27/22 4:11:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is great advice that the member gave at the beginning about arguing with fools, yet I still come back here day after day and subject myself to it. I guess I will just have to deal with it, because I keep doing it. The member, again, is missing the most important part of this, which is the fact that yes, the price on pollution goes up, but so does the rebate. The member wants to talk about making life more affordable. I would encourage the member to start voting in favour of some of the legislation coming before this House. We know that the Conservatives have just recently said they will support the increased GST top-ups, but what about dental care? If we want to talk about affordability and helping individuals who really need help, will the member vote in favour of that? Will the member vote in favour of some of the various other measures that have been brought forward by the government? I highly doubt it. The Conservatives have perhaps been pressured into voting in favour of the GST top-ups, but I think that is where we will see the end of their collaboration with this side of the House.

207 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Sep/27/22 4:12:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he travelled a lot this summer in his electric car. He passed through Montreal and ordered his poutine in French. I checked. The carbon tax does not affect us in Quebec because we already have an emissions trading mechanism in place. It is true that some sacrifices must be made. It is true that western Canadians must make sacrifices to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. In a way, I can understand their anger. I can kind of understand the alienation they feel when they are asked to make daily sacrifices on their home heating bill while, at the same time, they see the Liberal government buying pipelines and financing and approving a project like Bay du Nord. I wonder if the dialogue between western and central Canada would be easier if the Liberal government were a bit more consistent.

151 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Sep/27/22 4:13:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing that up. Quebec has an incredible system, the cap-and-trade system. It was actually Ontario, under the leadership of an environment minister with my last name, that went to California back in 2006-07. They negotiated that deal with California to put California, Quebec and Ontario in that agreement. Unfortunately, it was the first thing that Doug Ford threw out when he got into government. I also want to commend the member for the initiative. He brought up my electric car and travelling through Quebec. Quebec has by far the best electric charging infrastructure in the country. It is light years ahead of many of the other provinces. We will see that Quebec will win the game as it comes down to it. He asked a question about what to do between the various provinces and pipelines. I am personally not in favour of purchasing pipelines. I have made that case known. I have said it in this House before, and I stand by that position today. It is unfortunately one of the areas that I depart from some of my colleagues on, but I respect everybody's position on it, and that is my position.

207 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/27/22 4:14:21 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members to try to keep the questions and answers as short as they possibly can so everybody can participate who wants to participate. I see a lot of people standing up and wanting to ask questions, but we are running out of time.

48 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Sep/27/22 4:14:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois all agree that there should be a price on pollution. However, everything that the Liberal government does is cancelled out by other decisions it makes that wind up increasing greenhouse gas emissions. I am talking about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the Bay du Nord decision and the increased subsidies for oil companies. How can the Liberals claim to want to reduce pollution but then approve things that increase pollution?

91 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Sep/27/22 4:15:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are saying we are doing too much, and the NDP is saying we are not doing enough. Perhaps we are landing where we are supposed to be.

31 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/27/22 4:15:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and address the issue of a price on pollution. It is an issue that just does not seem want to go away. I had the opportunity earlier to formulate a question on something I wanted to expand upon, and that is trying to really understand what the Conservative Party is doing on the issue of a price on pollution. Over the years, we have seen many different types of positions coming from the Conservative Party. If we go back into the history books, we will find that it was the Province of Alberta that came up with the principle of a price on pollution. We have seen other provinces, whether it is British Columbia, Quebec or many, if not all, of the Atlantic provinces, that have seen the benefits of a price on pollution. A number of years ago, when we first came into government after the 2015 federal election, we conducted a series of discussions, working with the different stakeholders and, in fact, other world leaders, as the world recognized the value of a price on pollution. People like Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, and Brian Mulroney, a former Progressive Conservative prime minister, supported at least the principle of a price on pollution. We have seen the Conservative Party, in opposition, change its position. I remember when we first announced it, Conservatives were jumping out of their seats in protest against a price on pollution. As we got closer to an election, particularly the most recent election, we saw a change of heart. In fact, Conservative candidates across Canada in the last federal election knocked on doors saying they supported a price on pollution. They campaigned on it. Now the leader who got them to convert and recognize the value, as people like Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney did, is no more. At least, he is no longer leader of the Conservative Party. A shiny new leader says Conservatives are opposed to a price on pollution, and now there is an energy starting to come from many of the Conservative MPs I heard years ago saying they oppose it. If we listen to some of the speeches, we can see the misinformation they are trying to spread. Eighty per cent of the residents I represent in Winnipeg North, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will have more money coming into their homes as a direct result of the price on pollution. The Conservatives tell the constituents of Winnipeg North, my constituents, that they are paying more as a result of the price on pollution, and that is not true. I would suggest that my constituents and Canadians across the country look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in terms of the benefits to a vast majority of Canadians, and that they look at what other provinces are doing. I would ask members to try to understand this one. The Conservative Party of Canada says it is a bad policy and it wants to get rid of it. If the Conservatives were successful, and heaven forbid that occurs, they would get rid of the price on pollution, but that applies only to Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the leader of the Conservative Party approaching the different premiers of our Confederation, saying the Conservatives are going to get rid of it in Ottawa and he wants them to get rid of it in those provinces? Does he plan on compensating those provincial governments in one form or another to encourage them to get rid of a price on pollution, or is he just saying that in some regions of the country it is okay to have a price on pollution and in other regions it is not? If there was no federal price on pollution and the Province of Manitoba at some point in time in the future wanted one, would the Conservative Party say it cannot have a price on pollution? I do not believe that to be the case. The Conservative policy really makes no sense at all. If we listen to what has been said by the Conservatives over the years, we understand that they are all over the place, and at the end of the day it makes no sense. I think they need to go back to the drawing board, like their former leader, the one who campaigned in favour of the price on pollution in the last federal election. Maybe they should invite him in and allow him to participate in that discussion. The Conservatives need to be more consistent in understanding the long-term impact of the type of misinformation they give, and should even try to deal with the issue, which many of us have, that there are many climate change deniers in the Conservative Party. We have heard from the newly minted leader of the Conservative Party and many of his colleagues that he is this new economic guru of sorts. He actually made a statement, so my colleague from Kingston posed a question on it, as did our parliamentary secretary for tourism: What about the advice to Canadians about cryptocurrency? Let us remember that when he was running for the leadership, there were two things that really stood out. One was that he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not want to say any unparliamentary words, but suffice it to say, that is not a good idea. Along with that was forgetting about the Canadian dollar and investing in cryptocurrency. He was contending to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Believe it or not, unfortunately, some people would have followed the advice, been intrigued by the statement and looked into it. I would suggest that many would have bought into cryptocurrency. Today, those who did are suffering great losses as a result of listening to the leader of the Conservative Party. I find this interesting. Yesterday, I was listening to a number of the Conservatives talk about having a wonderful economic policy. I have not seen it. There is some room for encouragement, I guess, and we talked about the GST rebate to support Canadians during this time of inflation. I recognize there is inflation. Our inflation is lower than that of the United States and the European Union, but we can always do better. We are striving to do that, and one of the ways we are doing that is by introducing substantial legislation to provide relief to Canadians in all regions of the country. We have Bill C-31, on dental care. The Conservatives are still offside and say it is a bad idea. It is the only party in the chamber saying it is a bad idea. However, with respect to Bill C-30, the Conservatives saw the light. Originally, they were against it, but I guess they did some math and figured out we are giving 11 million Canadians a financial break through the enhanced GST rebate, so over the weekend they made the decision to support it. Let me give them some words of encouragement. If they are genuine in wanting to support Canadians and help them deal with inflation, why not do what they can to encourage the quick passage of our legislation, and at least Bill C-30? After all, they apparently support it now. That is some good, sound advice. I hope they take advantage of it.

1246 words

All Topics

Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC)

Sep/27/22 4:25:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite. Just this week, in our local newspaper in Barrie, the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank was talking about how much more use there is right now. She is even seeing that some people who have historically donated to the food bank are now coming in and using it. She lists some of the reasons. Obviously number one was the inflation rate, which people are finding tough, but she specifically mentioned the price of gas going up. That is causing concern to the organization and to people coming in. What would you like me to go back and tell the executive director when we are talking about raising the carbon tax, which you seem to feel is fine going forward? I understand there is a climate situation, but these people are struggling out there, and I have to tell them if it is either going up a few more cents, as you say, or going up by three times, which is what I hear. Please tell me what I am supposed to go back and tell the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank.

195 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/27/22 4:26:42 p.m.
Watch

I would remind folks to ask questions without speaking directly to members. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

16 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/27/22 4:26:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would tell constituents, number one, that there is a rebate for the price on pollution, whereby 80% of Canadians actually get back more money than they pay. I would also tell them that I am going to be voting in favour of Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Bill C-30 would literally put hundreds of dollars into the pockets of 11 million people to help combat inflation. I would tell them that when they take a look at Bill C-31, they will see a dental care plan so that those who have challenges with their financial needs will be able to get their children dental work. As opposed to having to pay for it, it would be claimed back. Literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars are going back into the pockets of people to help them through this challenging time of inflation. That is what I would say.

155 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Sep/27/22 4:27:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. The topic of the day is inflation. The Conservatives have their reasons for talking about the carbon tax. Does my colleague agree that seniors are among those who are struggling most because of inflation? Does he agree that seniors are suffering the most because of inflation and that, more than anyone else, they have been abandoned by his government? My question is quite simple and straightforward.

77 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/27/22 4:28:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's statement that seniors are one of the most affected groups because they are on fixed incomes. However, I would totally disagree with abandoning them. If the member takes a look, right from the word “go” when we first took office back in 2015, we enhanced senior services, both directly and indirectly. If he takes a look at the pandemic, again we have supported our seniors, whether it is through the GIS, OAS, indexing based on COLA, the direct payments that have led to thousands of dollars or the 10% increase for seniors over 75. This is not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars we have provided to non-profit organizations to continue to support and provide services for seniors. No government in the history of Canada, I would argue, has been there in such a significant way to support our seniors from coast to coast to coast.

159 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Sep/27/22 4:29:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spent some time talking about policy that makes sense. While it is true that the Liberals have talked a great deal about the climate crisis since 2015, they have not yet hit a target they have set and emissions are higher today than they were when they took office in 2015. Under the output-based pricing system, Canada's biggest polluters pay the lowest carbon tax rate. Oil and gas companies are only paying a tiny fraction of the cost of their pollution, and 80% to 90% of emissions are exempt. Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price. Of course, the government bought and is building a TMX bitumen pipeline and approved Bay du Nord, which will increase carbon emissions in this country. How can the member tell Canadians that this makes any sense?

142 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/27/22 4:30:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, whether it is working with the Province of Alberta on TMX or working with the NDP provincial government of B.C. on LNG, making good on ideas that are going to have positive income at the end of the day is something we very much want to see take place. That is one of the reasons this is not just about the short term. We should also be thinking long term. We have a commitment through legislation to hit net zero by 2050. There are also targets established for every five years, I believe, and there is a review process to ensure that we are able to maintain those targets. In the short term we are there, and in the long term we will be there too.

129 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Sep/27/22 4:31:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Foothills. I always learn so much when he is on his feet. I appreciate the opportunity to rise and debate today. Make no mistake: Inflation is a very serious concern. Inflation, as we all know, leads to the Bank of Canada raising interest rates, and that creates a whole new number of very serious concerns. Yesterday, before I began writing this speech, I came across a tweet from the Bank of Canada that said, “The high cost of living is felt daily by everyone, particularly people with fixed incomes. To control #inflation, we need higher interest rates to bring it down. By moving quickly now, we can avoid even higher rates later on.” I have spoken with many of my constituents at length about this issue and continue to hear almost daily from citizens about this serious concern. Based upon what I am hearing, parts of that tweet from the Bank of Canada simply are not accurate. When the Bank of Canada says, “The high cost of living is felt daily by everyone”, it is simply not true. Wealthy individuals, those who have no debt, have told me that while they are concerned, they themselves are not impacted at all. Some have even suggested they are coming out ahead, as their investments, in some cases, are now earning higher interest. I do not bring this up to pick on the Bank of Canada, but the bank is naive in suggesting that we are all in this together when it comes to higher costs of living. This simply does not affect people with more wealth that way. To the credit of the Bank of Canada, it does acknowledge that the higher cost of living does seriously impact those on fixed incomes, and that is absolutely true. However, there is another group of citizens the bank ignores, and it is those who carry debt with variable interest rates, also known as the working poor. To them, the higher costs of living are a serious concern. The only greater concern to them, and it is a much greater concern, is the higher interest rates from the Bank of Canada itself. Last week, I heard from a household in Kelowna that now has to come up with an extra $900 a month to cover the higher interest rates on the mortgage payment. This is a family of four, and they do not have a spare $900 a month sitting around. Few working families do. I should also point out that the Liberal stress test itself, in some cases, forces people to take a variable interest rate because they do not qualify for a fixed rate. People are often left to make a decision: Do they get into a variable mortgage rate on a house, which is often cheaper than renting? Then they find out that with the interest rates going up, they are barely hanging on. What are they to do? They could try selling, although there is no guarantee that this would not leave them further in debt. Worse still, there is nothing they could rent for any less than what they are paying in a mortgage. They live in fear that the Bank of Canada will raise rates even further, and who can blame them for being fearful? What does that situation have to do with our motion today? As the Bank of Canada says in the same tweet, “To control #inflation, we need higher interest rates to bring it down.” However, here is the thing. According to the Liberal government, as we have heard many times now, inflation has nothing to do with it. It is all related to supply chain problems outside of Canada, it claims. For higher gas prices, which we know is one of the stronger drivers of inflation, the Liberals blame Putin. If the Liberals are telling us the truth that all of this is due to factors outside of Canada, how does the Bank of Canada raising interest rates fix international supply chain problems or stop Putin? It does not, of course. Let us all stop for a moment to ask an obvious question. Given that we have all witnessed how dramatically rising gas prices can drive inflation, is it not a reasonable question to ask what factors drive the price of gasoline that the Liberal government can actually do something about? It turns out we have an obvious answer here: the Liberal carbon tax. In fact, our very own Bank of Canada governor has written a letter on this to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. In that letter, he says, “According to the Bank’s calculations, if the charge were to be removed from the three main fuel components of the consumer price index (gasoline, natural gas and fuel oil) it would reduce the inflation rate by 0.4 percentage points.” Just so we are clear, the charge is the charge of the Liberal carbon tax. There we have it in writing from the Bank of Canada. The carbon tax, at its current rate, adds almost half a percentage point to our inflation. As we know, the Liberal carbon tax is set to triple, even though the Liberals promised before the last election that they would not do that. I can already hear the howls of outrage from some within the Liberal caucus: “But the rebates, the rebates will triple.” Here is the thing. The rebates, as I have concluded recently in this place in a different speech, may well help some to get ahead. As an example, for the finance minister living in Toronto without a car, she would likely come out a winner, but for people in my riding, living in a community such as Hedley, they will not be so lucky. Why? Because in Hedley there is no high school. There is no middle school. There is no hospital. There are no major grocery stores and few public transit options are available. People in Hedley have two choices: drive west to Princeton or drive east to Keremeos. Sometimes they may have to drive to Penticton, which is even farther away. That same situation occurs for much of rural Canada. Why should these people be punished with a carbon tax for living in a community that they can afford to live in? Why should someone be punished with a carbon tax for trying to heat their home in the cold winter months? People with older, poorly insulated homes that cost more to heat do get punished. Punished for what? In British Columbia, where we have Canada's oldest carbon tax, the emissions continue to rise, not unlike federally where the government has missed every single emissions target it has ever set. In other words, we have a carbon tax that inflicts financial pain as it does not treat people equally. It does not actually reduce emissions, and the Bank of Canada confirms that it actually drives up inflation, which hurts everyone. These are facts that can be verified. Worse, our major trading partners, the United States and Mexico, do not have carbon taxes. The United States is supposed to come out with its own plan to fight climate change, but of course it is doing so with a focus on technological improvements and new standards, not a carbon tax. When the government says that any plan has to include a carbon tax to be taken seriously, how is this line of reasoning expected to be taken seriously when it comes to our largest trading partner, the United States, refusing to add an inflationary divisive measure like a carbon tax? Why are energy companies like TC Energy focusing more on places in Mexico than their home country, particularly during a moment when the world is clearly in need of more energy, not less? While North America has seen a drop in energy prices in recent months, one has to ask when the American strategic reserve, by law, has to start refilling. When demand from the American federal government and the American consumers start rippling through our integrated energy markets here in Canada, will we not have wished that we had done more work by Canadian companies and the government to secure our own energy security, rather than the reserves of other countries like the United States and Mexico? It does not end there. The forestry companies that owned the last three lumber mills that shut down in B.C. did not leave forestry. They have opened three new lumber mills all in the United States where they will pay zero carbon taxes. They will also pay zero of the Liberals' increased payroll taxes as well, but that is a topic for a different debate. Recently, at the end of August, one of the largest recreational boat builders closed shop in Kelowna. They moved their operations down to Texas and perhaps Mexico. Guess how much carbon tax they will pay there. The answer, of course, is zero. To recap, it is true that there are some problems outside of our control in Canada but, make no mistake, we have families here right across this country who are barely hanging on and who cannot afford another interest rate hike from the Bank of Canada. What if there is something else we could do to help the cost of living? There is something we can do and we can do it as soon as possible. Stop the government's plan to triple the carbon tax. This will do two things. It will help lower inflation. Also, it will help increase affordability. It is for these reasons I will be supporting this motion. If the government is not prepared to do those things for Canadians, so be it. However, the government should not pretend that all these challenges are from outside of Canada when indeed we do have a made-in-Canada solution, more so now as winter is coming. I ask all hon. members to please consider voting in support of this motion. I would also like to pass on my thanks for listening to my comments here today on behalf of my constituents.

1714 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Sep/27/22 4:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his discussion today, the member said that any plan has to have a carbon tax. That is simply untrue. Quebec does not have a carbon tax. Quebec has used a very progressive system of cap and trade that was done through collaboration with Ontario and California, as I indicated earlier in my questions and comments. In the United States, several jurisdictions have various different forms of pricing pollution. One of them I just mentioned. In fact, 14 out of 31 OECD countries have some form of pricing pollution. Therefore, for this member to make a comment that any system has to have a carbon tax to be effective, that is just not the reality of what is going on in Canada right now and in the rest of the world.

133 words