SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Oct/20/22 3:48:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I proposed in 2016 was, in fact, a revenue negative carbon tax. I even said at the time that I did not support this government's carbon tax quite simply because it is revenue positive. Not all of the money is returned to taxpayers. The government has used it for a plethora of programs that are not working. In fact, the government admits it itself. It says that 20% of households do not receive more back in these rebates than they pay in carbon taxes. What I proposed is nothing of the sort of what the government is proposing. Its plan is not working and the proof is in the pudding, as reputable news organizations like Bloomberg are pointing out.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Oct/20/22 3:49:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He criticized the government for being out of touch. That surprised me, considering that the opposition motion would reduce the cost of heating, but not until April. We all know people do not heat their homes as much in April. This Conservative Party proposal is contradictory in many ways, and it is disappointing, frankly, because it does not elevate the debate in the House. Why does my colleague think his party moves motions that offer little in the way of solutions? So many more useful things could be done for our constituents.

101 words

Hon. Michael Chong

Oct/20/22 3:49:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I disagree with her. The carbon tax already applies to petroleum products for households and consumers in Ontario and other parts of our country. The carbon tax is already in place and the figures I quoted were not for the increase that is slated to come in on April 1 of next year. They are for the carbon tax that is already in place and has been in place for a number of years that was increased on April 1 of this year. These are the costs households are facing this coming winter. We are calling on the government to provide relief to these households, as many other major economy governments have done and cut the taxes on these fuels so that households will not face either freezing in the dark this winter or potential bankruptcy.

145 words

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

Oct/20/22 3:51:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, definitely people are worried about upcoming heating bills. My question for the member is about fair taxation. Does the member believe there is a lot of work to do to close the loopholes here in Canada for the ultrarich and corporations that are making outsized profits during this pandemic?

51 words

All Topics

Hon. Michael Chong

Oct/20/22 3:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things we can do to help disparity in this country is to reduce the tax burden on the most vulnerable households, many of whom live in rural Atlantic Canada and rural Ontario, many of them in older housing stock that was built before 1980 that are facing extraordinarily high heating bills this winter. I think that would be a good place to start, and I encourage all members of the House to vote for the motion in front of us.

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Oct/20/22 3:52:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate because this directly affects Canadians. If there is one thing on the minds of every Canadian family from coast to coast to coast, from British Columbia, to Manitoba, to Quebec, to Newfoundland or the Far North, it is inflation. Unfortunately, things are not really getting better. The most recent figures show inflation hovering around 7%. That means a 7% increase in the general cost of just about everything. The area where inflation is hitting the hardest, where it is most directly and acutely affecting every Canadian family, is the cost of food. If there is one part of the budget that cannot really be cut, it is food, because it is essential. I am laughing, but I do not find it funny, because Canadian families are really struggling. According to the latest figures, food prices have risen by more than 11.4%. These are goods that are considered essential, such as cereal products, which have risen by 18%, coffee, by 16.4%, bread, a basic product, by 15%, and fresh fruit, by 13%. Even more dramatically, the price of pasta has risen by 36% and, for those who like it, peanut butter, by 42%. With a 42% increase, I doubt anyone will want to try it. The reality for all Canadians is that inflation is skyrocketing. It is important to understand that one of the things that is driving food prices up is the cost of shipping. Food does not fall from the sky. It must be transported. As we know, most products are transported by truck, and most trucks run on gas. This Liberal government's carbon tax is taking its toll. If the Liberal carbon tax were having any impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we could call it a success, but that is not the case. The government has never met any of its targets for combatting or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not working. It is now the end of October, and it is starting to get cold. The Canadian winter is coming. Everyone in Canada knows that we use more heat in winter. Fully 3.8 million Canadians, or one in 10, use propane or traditional fuels such as oil. This affects a lot of people. When transportation is directly involved, it impacts heating and food. That is why the government must implement good, positive and constructive measures to tackle the problem of inflation. This government is a little bit difficult to follow. Being the finance minister is no small role, yet we are increasingly seeing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance beginning to act as the prime minister, the foreign affairs minister, the natural resources minister and the environment minister. In short, she is taking on all the roles and speaking to groups all over the world. That is how the government finds out what its new finance policy is. Even worse, the finance minister is completely contradicting the government's record. Today, she stated that her government's policies have had an impact on inflation. Unfortunately, she is right about that. It is unfortunate because we have been saying for years that the Liberal government's policies have fuelled the inflation that is now hitting Canadians. When members talk about inflation, they often say that it is affecting the whole world. However, I would point out that inflation does not happen overnight. There are situations that fuel inflation, and this government has been demonstrating that for seven years and one day. The election was seven years ago. That is when this government was elected. Let us not forget the big campaign promise that the government made about public finances in 2015. It said it would run three modest deficits and then achieve a zero deficit in 2019. What actually happened during that first term? It was three major deficits, followed by a fourth deficit. That is the track record of this government, which got elected by promising to run three small deficits and then a zero deficit. That did not happen. On the contrary, the government increased the debt by over $100 million. When the pandemic hit, the government started handing out money like drinks at an open bar. We understand that crises can occur. When we were in office in 2008, we expected that there might be deficits but that they would only be temporary. Most importantly, in the wake of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 crisis, our government implemented a plan to balance the budget, and that plan worked. The fact remains that, in 2015, we were the first G7 country to get back on our feet after the financial crisis of 2008, 2009 and 2010. We led the pack in terms of countries that weathered the crisis best. Today, we are at the back of the pack when it comes to this government's management of the public purse. The deficits the government ran because of the pandemic were to be expected, but that is not the case for the enormous deficits this government decided to rack up. It added $500 billion to the debt. Some will say that these deficits were due to the pandemic, but $200 billion of that amount was not COVID-19 related. We must therefore be wary when the Liberals say that the deficits are due to COVID-19, because that is not the case. We can do a very detailed review of all the government's measures and its out-of-control spending. The latest financial disaster is ArriveCAN, a major hassle for just about everyone in Canada on top of not producing the desired results. We want to take a close look at why so many tens of millions of dollars were spent on something that never worked and could have been developed for a fraction of the price. This government's track record includes over half a trillion dollars in accumulated debt. Of that, over $100 billion predates COVID‑19, and over $200 billion has nothing to do with COVID‑19. Now we have to deal with it. What is the government's plan to try to curb inflation or reduce its impact on Canadians? Unfortunately, it does not have one. Worse still, it refuses to temper its greedy desire to raise taxes, which is the wrong thing to do. I realize that when inflation is high and taxes are kept at the same rate, it can be very profitable for a government. As people pay higher prices, the tax is obviously higher. The amount of money that the government takes in is much higher than it would normally be. While the government is lining its pockets, Canadians are having their pockets picked because of rampant inflation and a government that refuses to cut taxes. There are two things that should be noted about this government. Personally, I like to compare myself to the best. Let us compare Canada's current Liberal government to the other G7 countries, which are the most industrialized countries, the best countries in the world. Unfortunately, the Canadian government is the only G7 government that has not cut taxes. The other six countries have done so. Even the Prime Minister's close friend, President Biden, lowered certain taxes. Every country on the planet wanted to provide relief to taxpayers. Only Canadians, who are living under the yoke of this Liberal government, are not getting any relief. Canada is the only G7 country to have raised taxes on fuel, but this is not producing the desired results, in other words lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Worse yet, it is increasing the burden on the citizens. That is the reason for today's runaway inflation, which is affecting the lives of every Canadian. When the price of traditional energy is directly affected, that directly affects the price of transportation, heating and food. These are necessities for Canadians, who live a big country and who need to eat, get around, and heat their homes. The government is maintaining the Liberal carbon tax and the planned increase on April 1, but that is not the right approach to solve the climate problems, much less to help Canadians who are dealing with the inflationary crisis that is hurting all families right now.

1392 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 4:01:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the member opposite is talking about tax relief for Canadians, does he consider a doubling of the GST credit tax relief? If not, what is it?

29 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Oct/20/22 4:02:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague's question. The point is that when we talk about tax breaks, we talk about real tax breaks. For many weeks, if not for many months or even a full year, we have asked the government to lower the taxes in this country. It is not because we are good guys on this side of the House, but because we are actual citizens and we understand. More than that, everybody in the world is doing this. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Gérard Deltell: Madam Speaker, each and every country in the G7 has lowered taxes, except the Canadian government. Shame on them.

111 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 4:02:48 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill that she had an opportunity to ask a question. She does not have an opportunity to do a rebuttal, unless it is through questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

49 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Oct/20/22 4:03:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech. I know that he is also the environment critic, so I would like to ask him a rather simple question. If there is one price that keeps going up and down, it is the price of fossil fuels. If there is one thing that is always changing, that is chronically unstable, it is the price of fossil fuels. Does my colleague agree that we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels? I fully realize that a transition will not take place overnight, so not everyone is going to lose their jobs, but we need a plan to reduce our dependency, and the sooner the better.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Oct/20/22 4:03:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his question. Of course we are in favour of that. The entire world agrees that climate change is real and that we need an energy transition. We have been saying that for years too. However, we need to find the right approach. As a Canadian, I will never understand why we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars to other countries when we have that traditional energy here at home. In Quebec, where I am proud to live and pay my taxes, we see that, year after year, 35%, 40% or 45% of the oil we use comes from Texas. I am uncomfortable with that as a Canadian. Perhaps it does not bother some people to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Texas, and that is their call. I, for one, would rather keep that money here in Quebec. I do not support the Bloc Québécois, but I certainly do not support Texas.

170 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Oct/20/22 4:04:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the environment critic on the Conservative bench. I want to frame this question with a very important context. When we are taking a solution from one emergency, which is the climate emergency, to try to address another emergency, my recommendation to the member is that we can actually do both. The New Democratic Party has tabled an amendment to the Conservative motion that would take GST off home heating, something the New Democrats have fought for for a long time. If the member truly wants to ensure that a lower cost of living for Canadians is achieved and we actually get a result for Canadians, would he accept our amendment to ensure we get GST off home heating?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Oct/20/22 4:05:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be the environment and climate change critic, or shadow cabinet minister. I am very confident in the mandate that my leader gave to me. As a Canadian and Québécois, I am so proud to address this issue. For years we have been asking the government to lower taxes. We could not believe it when we realized a few months that the government was still keeping the plan to raise taxes not once, not twice but three times, tripling the Liberal carbon tax on April 1. If the government is serious about helping all Canadian families, it will scrap the target to triple the Liberal carbon tax.

117 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 4:06:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to today's opposition motion put forward by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. This motion proposes to exempt carbon pricing from some fuels based on their targeted purpose on the premise that affordability and fighting climate change are mutually exclusive. From the outset, I want to make it clear that this is a false premise and I reject it. The environment and the economy go hand in hand, and one good example of this is the price on pollution. We know that the price on pollution has reduced carbon intensity in our economy since it was first introduced, and without it, our emissions would have been going up more than they have been. We know that the price on pollution is a market mechanism and is one of the most efficient ways to reduce carbon. It is widely held as the best way to do this from economists worldwide and has been instituted by many governments. We also know that this is a revenue-neutral price on pollution and that the money given back to Canadians who pay for it, for the most part, offsets any additional costs they incur. We have been targeting our relief to Canadians who need it most. A blanket exemption of the price on pollution for all Canadians would provide relief to Canadians who need it and to Canadians who can perhaps afford it. All Canadians should be doing their part to reduce pollution. I believe we are doing that, and we are compensating those who can afford it least by returning this money, which is paid through the climate action incentive. Canadians in provinces where this plan is in place have received a cheque. In Ontario, they would have received it starting last Friday from the climate action incentive. It gave them much-needed money at this time. The money they will be receiving back will be in excess of what they are contributing, if they are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint. It is this price signal that is so important for reaching our goals. We all know that we have had inflationary periods over the past and that commodity prices rise and fall. We have seen this happening for many reasons. The global impacts of the war on Ukraine, of the post-COVID economy and of so much more have hit people around the world. This will happen again, and while we know it is causing challenges for many Canadians and we are providing programs and incentives that are targeting the Canadians who need help the most, we are also aware that the climate crisis is not going away. We as a government have a commitment to Canadians. We have a commitment to businesses that are investing in clean tech. We have a commitment to Canadians, who are trying to make choices to reduce their carbon footprint, to maintain this price on pollution and not continually introduce waivers and exemptions along the way. They rely on our commitment to make investments. We need to continue to do that. If we want Canadians businesses to invest in clean energy and want Canadian businesses to invest in clean tech, we cannot go back and forth and say today it is on and tomorrow it is off. The Progressive Conservative Party used to be a party of business. It understood economics. I am really dismayed to see how the CPC has changed its bend. Now its math is even off. The price on pollution will be increasing from $50 a tonne to $65 a tonne on April 1, 2023. For most of Canada, that is after the coldest winter months, and in the math that I learned, that is not a doubling, a tripling or even a 35% rise in the price on pollution. I am not sure where the Conservatives are getting their economic or math abilities these days, but clearly they are not doing it themselves. To go back to the price on pollution and the need for it, we often talk about what it costs Canadians and the cost of a price on pollution, but we do not often talk about what it costs us if we do not do this. What does it cost us if we do not take action to fight climate change? Those costs are significant. We have seen them recently on the east coast with hurricane Fiona. We saw them on the west coast with atmospheric rivers, which none of us had heard of before but we now have in our vocabulary. These costs are significant. It is estimated that they are now $1.9 billion a year. Those costs and the effects they have on Canadians' day-to-day living, on small businesses, on the agricultural manufacturing sector, on farms, on so many people are real costs. They include the cost of insurance going up, the flooding of homes and the supply chains that are being affected, which ultimately affects inflation. These things are happening because of the climate crisis and because we are not doing enough. Therefore, in addition to the price on pollution, we have introduced other programs to try to expedite that change, because we know we have not met some of our targets. However, the price on pollution is effective and we have seen that because the intensity of carbon emissions has gone down. We cannot be short-sighted in this House. We cannot just be focused on the next six months. We have to look at the long term and do things for Canadians, both to build a stronger economy and to help Canadians with affordability while at the same fighting climate change. I am proud that our government is doing that. We are targeting support because we are cognizant of the effects of widespread spending on inflation. We are trying not to put in place a measure that all Canadians get. We are trying to put in a measure that Canadians who need it most would benefit from. Taking the price on pollution off of heating oil and propane at this time would benefit all Canadians who use that fuel. I use that fuel in my home and I am among the many Canadians who do not need that break currently. Let us focus on Canadians who need it most. Unlike Conservative policy with the Canada child care benefit, which was given to millionaires, we changed that and gave it to the people who need it most. That is what we have to do with our dollars now: focus on those who are really suffering and try to help all Canadians through other programs that we have put in place. We have one of the most ambitious programs to address climate change and we know that other countries around the world are joining us. In fact, one of the premises in the preamble of this motion is that we are the only country that has increased the price on pollution during this period, and that is not true. In Canada, we are doing it in a very orderly fashion, incrementally by $10 a year and $15 a year going forward. Germany, for example, put a price on pollution of $25 a tonne in 2021. It will be going up to over $55 a tonne in one fell swoop. That is not what we chose to do. We chose to do it incrementally and consistently, so that people knew what was going to happen, they could adjust to those price increases and it would allow businesses to respond accordingly. I know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast recognize that we need a government with a real plan of action, including the very effective market mechanism of the price on pollution. It is not sufficient, so we are moving forward with that. We are sticking with it while offering support to Canadians who need it most now. We will continue to do that and show that a green economy and green future go together. Let us keep fighting climate change while supporting Canadians.

1369 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Oct/20/22 4:15:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again I find it very interesting that real challenges being faced specifically by Atlantic Canadians and the cost of living crisis faced by so many are being dismissed by members of the government and also other left-leaning parties in this place. It is the definition of “elitism” to suggest that it is okay for us to raise prices as long as it is incrementally breaking people's banks just a little at a time. That is what the Liberals are suggesting. The Prime Minister was elected in 2015 on the promise that he would never go above $50 a tonne. He promised that until it was learned through a slip of the tongue by his former environment minister that it was actually going up to $170 a tonne and some reports would suggest that it may go up to $1,000 a tonne. Are the Liberals planning to continue to flip-flop and incrementally break Canadians at the bank?

164 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Oct/20/22 4:16:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there have been two elections since 2015, just to remind the hon. member opposite. Canadians have chosen to return us with our climate plan, which they see as a real plan, as opposed to the flip-flopping on the Conservative side, which, at some points, wants a price on pollution and then changes to not having a price on pollution and then goes back to, perhaps, a price on pollution. I am not sure where they are now. One member here seems to support it while the leader does not. If he could clarify that for me, that would be great but, no, we are not flip-flopping. We are staying consistent in fighting climate change and we will continue to do that.

125 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Oct/20/22 4:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, I would like to acknowledge my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and whom I hold in high regard. We must work to wean ourselves off oil, even if that thought gives some people hives. There are several ways to move away from oil, and the tax on pollution is one of them, but there is also the issue of energy efficiency. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

85 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Oct/20/22 4:17:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite, with whom I enjoy serving on the environment committee very much. I agree with you 100%. We know that we—

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 4:18:04 p.m.
Watch

I would like to ask the hon. member to address questions and comments through the Chair. It is not the first time.

22 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Oct/20/22 4:18:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do believe that we have to reduce reliance on fossil fuels for many reasons. Climate is, of course, one of them, but there is also the ups and downs in the commodity price, which has caused so much difficulty for Canadians in affording this. Certainly, we will continue to do that. We have to also look, though, at efficiency in heating homes. That is why we have the greener homes grant. We also need to look at efficiency in new buildings. As we are increasing our housing stock, we have to make sure that homes are being built with greater efficiency, so that home heating costs are not as great and we do not have to rely on propane and heating oil. Yes, I agree with the member opposite. I also know that there is a transition and while we are doing that, we have to ensure that our oil and gas sector is the cleanest in the world. Continuing to put in mechanisms during that transition is equally important.

173 words

All Topics