44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/20/22 12:47:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here is a bit of a challenging question, and I hope the member chooses to answer it. He makes reference to the Atlantic, and I do not know whether he said Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador, and he said the government would receive hundreds of millions, I think he actually said a billion, in terms of a carbon tax. That is what we are going to be receiving.
Ottawa is not receiving carbon tax dollars coming from Atlantic Canada. It is the provinces that are receiving that money. If he really believes it is Canada that is receiving it, can he provide us an actual number that he believes the Government of Canada is receiving because of a carbon tax in Atlantic Canada?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:47:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way knows that his leader and his party support forcing Atlantic Canadian premiers to place a carbon tax on home heating fuel. The carbon tax is a federal government initiative, and my colleague knows who invented the carbon tax. I just cannot wait to hear him say later that Atlantic Canada is going to get so much back. I cannot wait to hear him say later that we get so much back in rebates, like the Prime Minister constantly brags about, when it is completely false. Atlantic Canadians get zero back in rebates on the carbon tax.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:49:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague will agree that, when natural disasters happen, it is natural for governments to help the people who are affected. We saw it with Fiona. The government made investments to help those who had paid the price in their everyday lives. They lost their homes and other possessions.
The UN estimates that, over the past 20 years, natural disasters have cost the world $3 trillion. When governments pay, it is the taxpayer who ultimately ends up paying for it in taxes.
How can my colleague think that taxpayers will benefit?
The cost comes to $3 trillion over the last 20 years. Just imagine what will happen if nothing is done. The carbon tax is not a perfect tool, but experts say that it is not that bad for now. In Quebec, we are better off, since we have a carbon market. Obviously, the bill will come due for taxpayers eventually.
How does my colleague think things will go?
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:50:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what troubles me the most is the Bloc's attack on oil and gas. Renowned financial experts have said that if it were not for our oil and gas industry, Canada's dollar would be worth 35 U.S. cents.
I have a little something else. How would my hon. colleague's province do without the transfer payments that arise from the prosperity that comes from our oil and gas industry? They cannot have it both ways.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:50:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, people are worried about upcoming increases in their home heating bills. Meanwhile, CEOs of big oil and gas are making huge profits on the backs of families. They made $147 billion last year. I never once heard the hon. member talk about the Irving family. The Irving Oil Corporation estimates revenue per employee at over $320,000, so does the member agree with forcing wealthy CEOs and big oil and gas companies to pay what they owe in order to fund the GST exemptions on home heating costs?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:51:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a great question, but it kind of flies in the face of the support that our Liberal-NDP coalition gave to Loblaws. It gave Loblaws billions of dollars for its freezers while Loblaws was making massive profits.
I support capitalism and free enterprise, not socialism and Marxism.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 12:52:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, It is a privilege to rise today to address this motion concerning carbon pollution pricing, particularly as it affects my constituents in York Centre, in the north end of Toronto.
Climate change is real. It is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and carbon pricing is the backbone of our climate plan. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, the cost of living, infrastructure, and health and safety. The economic activity in communities across Canada is disrupted time and time again.
We hear a lot of talk today about costs. The official opposition never speaks about the cost to our communities and to our health and safety, or about the impacts on the economy from these increasingly frequent severe weather events.
The latest science warns that to avoid severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to hold the global average temperature rise at 1.5°. In April 2021, the Government of Canada responded to this by submitting a strengthened national emissions target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, a key milestone on the pathway to the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and a piece of legislation I am proud to have worked on.
On March 29, 2022, the government released the 2030 emissions reduction plan, outlining how Canada will meet its 2030 target. The plan builds on a strong foundation, starting with Canada's first-ever climate change plan in 2016, and then our strengthened plan, released in 2020. Carbon pricing is central to this and to all of our plans, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
There was a time when Conservative economists at least understood this as a market fundamental, but today's Conservatives, honestly, are penny-wise and pound-foolish. They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada, and today they are fighting us on climate action. Today, we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. We just have to look at B.C. Between fires and floods, our residents are struggling.
I am sorry that I did not say this in my introduction. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg North.
While Conservatives oppose our climate plan, they also vote against every single measure our government brings in to improve affordability for Canadians. Whether it was a child tax benefit, pandemic relief or even, yesterday, on dental care and rental relief, they just keep voting no. I really do not understand why.
Now the Conservatives pretend to be on the side of helping those who may be facing energy poverty, but Canadians have been riding this roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years. It is not new, but Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins for oil and gas producers, nothing.
We have heard from stakeholders across the country that consistency and predictability are the key to unlocking investment in a low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce emissions. They need clear incentives and supports to commercialize and put those technologies into practice. Carbon pricing creates those incentives without dictating any particular approach. It lets businesses decide how best to cut their emissions.
At the same time, this motion emphasizes that Canadians, especially the most vulnerable Canadians, are facing an affordability challenge. The federal approach to carbon pricing was designed to maintain the consistency demanded by industry and investors while prioritizing affordability for Canadians and their families.
We know it is not enough to create a cleaner economy. We have to make sure Canadians can actually afford it. It is true that carbon pollution modestly increases fuel costs. The federal fuel charge currently adds about 10¢ to the cost of a cubic metre of natural gas, about 11¢ to a litre of gasoline and about 16¢ to a litre of home heating oil. These impacts will increase as the carbon price increases, and we know that every little bit counts with fuel prices already being high.
However, carbon pricing is not and has never been about raising revenues. In fact, most households in jurisdictions where federal fuel charges apply end up with more money in their pocket than they paid. Conservatives should know this.
A lot of members from the opposite way from Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba received their quarterly climate action incentive rebate, which was deposited just last week, but we never hear the Conservatives talk about that.
Wherever federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families actually get more back through climate action incentive payments than they face with the increase on fuel costs. This is particularly true for low-income households, which come out significantly ahead. Why? Because they get the same climate action incentive payment as every other household of the same size, including higher-income households, which tend to heat larger homes and drive larger vehicles.
For example, the average cost on carbon pricing on a household in Alberta is expected to be about $700 in 2022, but this is less than the average climate action incentive payment that will be provided to Alberta households, which is about $1,040. Similarly, in Ontario, the average household cost is estimated to be about $580, but households will receive back, on average, about $710. These estimates take into account direct costs, like paying more for fuel and also indirect costs, like paying a bit more for goods and services.
Families in rural and small communities are also eligible to receive an extra 10%, because we know that our rural and remote communities face increasing cost challenges.
Households can use these funds however they want. They can use them to absorb the higher cost of gasoline, natural gas and heating oil, and households that take action to reduce their energy use will come out even further ahead, because they will still receive the same climate action incentive payment.
Canadians have real options, and the government is providing support for those options. We are not asking people to change their lives overnight. Taking transit or using an electric vehicle will not work for everyone right now, which is why we have the climate action incentive to ensure that the policy is affordable for everyone.
Here is the real opportunity. Canadians who do make low-carbon changes benefit even more, and we are helping them make those choices.
For example, fuel-efficient vehicles use less gas and therefore incur fewer carbon costs. We are accelerating the rollout of electric vehicles, and the government provides purchase incentives to bring the cost down. We are investing in more charging stations and the technologies keep improving, with longer range, better batteries and lower costs. Canadians are starting to do the math; I wish my colleagues across the way would do it as well. It is a rising carbon price, volatile oil prices and tailpipe pollution versus less maintenance, no oil changes and charging at home.
We can look at our homes, and most of them are heated with natural gas, some still with heating oil. Better insulation, plugging leaks, a newer furnace, all of these use less energy, cut pollution and save money, which is why the government is supporting home energy retrofits through the Canada greener homes grant.
The only way to eliminate energy poverty, reduce household energy costs in Canada and to have true energy security is by fighting climate change.
The Government of Canada has also committed to return proceeds collected from the federal output-based pricing system, or OBPS, to the jurisdictions of origin. Provinces and territories that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in other backstop jurisdictions will be returned through OBPS proceeds fund aimed at supporting clean industrial technologies and clean electricity projects.
Climate change is a serious challenge, but it is also an opportunity, and a very big economic opportunity. Canadians want to take advantage of the significant economic opportunities in a low-carbon economy. Analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates that changing to a low-carbon economy will deliver a direct economic gain of $26 trillion U.S. and generate 65 million new jobs. That sounds good to me.
Just as we are putting a price on carbon pollution, we are also making historic investments in clean technology, innovation and green infrastructure to drive growth and reduce pollution, including $9.1 billion in new investments to cut pollution and grow the economy, which is part of our 2030 emissions reduction plan.
This is the plan for the future, and it reflects the submissions of over 30,000 Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous partners, industry, civil society and the independent net-zero advisory body.
Canadians want this. Canadians know we need to change, and the Conservatives are just going to be left behind.
1535 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:02:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I come from Oshawa, which has significant export business. What my colleague may not understand is that carbon taxes affect the expenses for business, which affects our competitiveness. The reality is that the Liberals do not have an environment plan. What they have is a failed tax plan that has done absolutely nothing to decrease emissions.
I wonder if the member would acknowledge this and admit that their plan has not worked with respect to lowering emissions and that she should be supporting our motion today.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:03:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to look at the history of the hon. member's party. When the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the leader, it took him over 400 days to come out with a climate pamphlet. The member for Durham was shunted out of here for wanting to say that climate change was real.
We have been consistent in doing the work year after year, passing the legislation, offering incentives and working with business and industry, because we all need to change together.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:04:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if my colleagues remember, but I remember when gas prices dropped to levels I had not seen since 2005. I told my partner that the pendulum would swing back the other way, that the price would soon go back up, and that it would not be good for the public because businesses would make up their profits when the pandemic was over. It seems that is exactly what is happening, with the huge profits we are seeing now.
I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about the possibility of taxing the oil companies' excess profits and taking a long-term view, instead of putting half measures in place.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, doing the right thing for the environment, and what we are talking about today, is about lowering household energy costs. We know the market is volatile; it goes up and down. The government pays attention to that and offers supports to Canadians when they need it, and sometimes it is targeted.
For example, recently the government put up $250 million to help Atlantic Canadians and others make the switch from home oil to clean energy or renewable alternatives.
We will be strategic and careful. We are looking at the bottom line with respect to the pocketbooks of Canadians, their dollars and their households.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:05:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the question that just came from the Bloc. We know that oil companies have had record profits, $147 billion last year alone. We have seen that with grocery stores. We have seen it with the big banks.
I agree with my colleague that we need to invest in clean energy and support people so they can be energy efficient, and we can lower costs on clean energy. The only way we are truly going to get there is by ensuring that big corporations and CEOs pay their fair share.
My colleague supported an NDP motion just this week to ensure that grocery store CEOs and big companies pay their fair share. Will she support the NDP's call to ensure that oil and gas companies and the big banks pay their fair share? When will the Liberals finally act?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:06:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am really glad we are on the same page with respect to the urgency of climate change, the costs that come to households, and ensuring that Canadians can make the necessary changes with supports like this one.
However, we need to realize that big corporations need to come along in the process also. That is why we will not back down on the carbon tax. That is why we will not back down on working with industry and technology to ensure that a green economy is the economy for Canadians.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:07:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I recently did a survey in my community, and affordability and climate change were the two top issues in Don Valley East. People there are very supportive of the initiatives we are taking.
I want to ask the member this. Why is there such a misalignment between the Conservatives and Canadians on this issue?
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:07:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy and his understanding that for the people in urban ridings like ours, the cost of living is really high. That is why we have these tax rebates for Canadians across the country. We understand that change is hard, but we need to make this change. The Conservatives are leaving themselves and others falling behind. I really cannot answer why they are dragging their feet on things that are so important to Canadians, like climate change.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:07:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what a great contrast between what the Conservative Party, the official opposition, is doing and what the government is doing.
We have a fundamental difference. We want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We believe in Canada's middle class. We want to support those striving to become a part of the middle class. We need to be there for those individuals who need that extra bit of help, directly or indirectly.
From what I can tell, this motion deals with two real topics. One is the issue of inflation and one is the issue of our environment. If I were to pick a couple of issues to show the contrast between the official opposition, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party, they would probably be two of the top three issues.
When I think of the price on pollution, it is almost comical where the Conservatives were and where they are today. They are definitely not consistent. I do not think they even understand the issue based on some of the comments we have heard today. Their arguments just do not make sense.
I posed a question to the relatively newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, who has once again changed the Conservative Party's policy on the price on pollution. All 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election, including every one of the members across the way, had an election platform that supported the principle of a price on pollution. That leader was dumped and a new leader has come in. Now there is a new policy position, that the Conservatives no longer support the principle of a price on pollution.
In 2015, countries from around the world went to Paris. Canada was one of many countries. Some agreements were achieved. One of the most productive discussions and dialogues that took place was on the principle of a price on pollution. Canada came back with a healthy delegation, and we started to push for a price on pollution. At that point, of course, the Conservative Party did not support it, but there were Conservatives from coast to coast to coast who did support it at one point.
The world has recognized that a price on pollution is in fact the way to go, but the Conservative Party, with its most recent flip-flop, has gone back in time. I would argue that the Conservatives are not listening to their constituents. It makes a whole lot of sense to have a price on pollution, but the Conservatives conveniently try to misrepresent the issue.
We all hear the words triple, triple, triple. Every Conservative member wants to stand in question period and say that the carbon tax will “triple, triple, triple.” They love saying that. What they do not tell us is that where the federal government is applying the price on carbon, in the jurisdictions like Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, over 50% of the population of Canada, there is actually a rebate, a credit. That credit is also triple, triple, triple. The Conservatives are trying, intentionally, to mislead more than half the population.
In Ontario, for example, it is a $745 credit. In Saskatchewan, it is well over $1,000 credit. In Alberta, it is over $1,000 credit. In my home province of Manitoba, it is $832 for a household. They will receive, as will other provinces, quarterly cheques. That is money in their pocket, because of the price on pollution. People in Manitoba recently received $208.
These are tangible things. The Conservatives will say that they are paying a tax. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer made it very clear that eight out of 10 are receiving more than they are paying.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, they can babble all they like, but that is what the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer states. That means that eight out of 10 constituents in Winnipeg North are receiving a net benefit, yet the Conservatives are fixated on trying to mislead the residents of Winnipeg North and, in fact, all Canadians.
Today we had a member from the Conservative Party say that Ottawa is collecting hundreds of millions of dollars on our carbon tax in Atlantic Canada, which is absolute garbage. That is, again, the Conservative Party misleading Canadians, because that is not what is happening. In the provinces where there is no federal backstop, the money is going to the provinces. Ottawa is not receiving that money. We are are not receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, as the member opposite tried to put on the record.
What we are witnessing is misinformation coming from the Conservative Party of Canada, all in the favour of a catchphrase. We see that, and we will see it in about an hour from now when its members stand up for question period. For them, it is humour. It is a bumper sticker. They are more interested in that than they are in the environment.
What is the Conservative Party of Canada's policy on the environment? It is moving backward. While every other political entity in Canada is moving forward in dealing with environmental concerns, the national Conservative Party is actually moving backward. If Canadians only knew the lack of sincerity, the misleading information and the ideas of the climate deniers in the Conservative Party, they would see the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals.
We can also talk about inflation, which is the other part the motion attempts to deal with. Conservatives are saying, even though it is not true, they will give a tax break on the price on pollution. Actions speak louder than words. In dealing with inflation, we brought forward legislative measures to assist people during this difficult time. The biggest one was the GST rebate, which is legislation the Conservative Party originally opposed. Eleven million Canadians would benefit from an enhanced GST rebate, and the Conservative Party originally opposed it. After being shamed, they finally saw they were making a mistake and voted for it. I applaud them for that. It is good they voted for it.
Then there is the dental care for children, which would provide assistance for kids under the age of 12 to receive dental care. The Conservative Party is voting against that. Along with that legislation there is legislation to support those who are finding it financially difficult to make their rental payments. Through the legislation, we would see direct payments. We also have legislation dealing with money going directly to people with disabilities.
Conservatives can talk all they want about fighting inflation, but all they are really interested in is what they can put on a bumper sticker. To them, that is what it is all about. As they focus on trying to create havoc, we will continue to focus on being there for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, recognizing we want an economy that works for all Canadians. We want a society that truly cares about social programs, one that values national programs that are going to make a difference.
Liberals will talk about the importance of long-term care and mental health. We will talk about dental care for our children. There are many things we—
1217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:18:04 p.m.
- Watch
It is time for questions and comments. The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap has the floor.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:18:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I continue to be amazed by the hypocrisy of the Liberal government. It baffles me why Liberals can claim they will be paying Canadians back more than they are paying in carbon tax. If that were the case, and the government would be giving them back more than it is costing them, why would Canadians change their habits? It simply makes no sense. It is obvious to me that this is not a plan to reduce emissions. This is simply a tax-and-spend plan, a shell game, from the Liberal government.
Could the member opposite please confirm that this plan is only meant to distract from the fact that the Liberal government has failed to meet any emissions targets in the seven years it has been in government, and that it is really just a shell game for a tax plan?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:19:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, ironically, members might be somewhat surprised to know that the principle of a price on pollution actually originated in the province of Alberta. Go figure. Other provinces then picked up on that and started to duplicate it or come up with different forms of it. It is only the national Conservative Party of Canada that is moving backward on this issue, and I do not quite understand why when more and more people are looking for leadership on the environment.
The report said that eight out of 10 people would benefit. The member does not have to believe me. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer made the statement that eight of 10 people will see a net benefit from the money being paid in and the money being paid out. That is a good thing, and it is why I think the Conservatives—
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 1:20:21 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Drummond.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
