44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/20/22 10:56:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member from Nova Scotia knows full well that his struggling constituents cannot afford the upfront costs to convert from oil to heat pumps. They have to strip out their oil heating equipment. They have to cut up their oil tanks. It is going to cost them about $10,000, and they have to pay that up front. How can they afford it, with the Liberal-fuelled inflation that these constituents are dealing with?
To my hon. colleague from over in the Annapolis Valley, can you explain to your constituents and to the rest of the people in Atlantic Canada the inverse relationship between your carbon tax policy and what we are seeing in the U.S., where they are lowering emissions with no tax policy? It does not make sense. When is it going to work?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 10:57:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me reiterate a couple of things. Carbon pricing is not applying to home heating fuel this winter. We recognize that there are vulnerable households out there, as the member recognized, that need support to be able to make that transition. That is exactly why we put $250 million into provincial programs, to do just that: to support some of the lowest-income, most vulnerable Canadians who would be in his riding and in mine. I believe the number is somewhere around $22 million to Newfoundland and Labrador alone to help support that transition.
This member opposite is providing no solutions. We are actually helping residents to make that transition and help reduce emissions at the same time. It is quite simple.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 11:00:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows I have respect for him, but the reality is he asked a question about corporate contribution to broader policy objectives and then also CEO pay. If the member opposite thinks we should increase taxation on high-income Canadians, I am happy to have that conversation in a debate in this chamber.
As it relates to oil and gas companies themselves, we are trying to incentivize them to make important investments to reduce the carbon intensity associated with their products, such that the Canadian oil and gas sector will have a future in 2050 for the smaller market that is going to exist globally.
It is important for Canada's competitiveness in this space to be able to reduce our emissions intensity. We are trying to incentivize the oil and gas companies to make that investment, similar to the $25 billion that was done just this past week.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 11:01:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to speak today, because we are talking about two issues that are so important to Canadians right across our country. These issues are affordability and climate change. The fact is that our country is warming at twice the global average. The north is warming three times as fast.
We are feeling the impacts of climate change right across this country. It is something that impacts people on a very personal level, as it impacts their homes and their livelihoods. It is also something that impacts our economy if we do not position ourselves to be the leader that we can be and that we are working to be right now, a leader in a low-carbon economy. That is where the world of opportunity lies for us: averting natural disasters and building a strong economy.
That is what we are doing. Along with that, we are building sustainable jobs for the future. That is why we need to invest and make sure we continue to work toward that low-carbon economy. That is where the sustainable jobs, the ones that will be there for generations to come, will be.
The issue is that for a country of 36 million people, Canada is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases. To fight climate change, to be competitive economically, like I have mentioned, we need to take action on climate change across all sectors of our economy, and we have to do it in a way that is fair and affordable for Canadians.
Scientific evidence shows that human-induced climate change has already had widespread and adverse effects. We have seen that in our country. We have seen it with floods, we have seen it with droughts and we have seen it with heat domes. All of these are having impacts right now, right across our country, yet Conservative politicians have been fighting climate action for years. That is literally why we face increased costs in cleanup from all of those disasters that I am talking about. In fact, wildfires right now in B.C. are creating all sorts of havoc. Those are only going to increase if we do not take action now. That is why we are committed to doing it.
As climate impacts intensify, it is all the more important and it is all the more obvious why we have to move to a clean net-zero emissions economy, to protect Canadians and the prosperity of Canadians going forward.
I am going to keep repeating that point, because with Conservatives bringing this motion, I think it is very important that they recognize that this is not just about environment and climate change. It absolutely is, but it is also about our economic future. It is about the sustainable jobs in all of our communities; good paying ones. Those are our opportunities and those are what we are trying to protect and create.
In recognition of these scientific and economic imperatives, Canada has set ambitious climate targets. In 2021, Canada enhanced its 2030 nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels. The government also committed to achieving net zero by 2050, and last June, Canada passed the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The purpose of the act is to increase transparency and accountability as Canada works towards net-zero emissions by 2050.
The emissions reductions plan, which I may refer to as the ERP sometimes, just because it is faster and easier to do that, is about achieving incremental GHG emissions to reach Canada's 2030 targets. It is about putting in place foundational measures to ensure not only that Canada's future is carbon neutral, but also that energy alternatives are more affordable and create sustainable job opportunities for workers.
Now, the Conservatives who have brought this motion today can pretend that they have been on the side of fighting energy poverty, but Canadians have been riding this roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years and Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins for oil and gas producers. The only way we are actually going to eliminate energy poverty and reduce household energy costs is by having true energy security by fighting climate change and making sure we are helping Canadians to get there, that we are helping Canadians to make the retrofits and to take advantage of energy-efficient measures right across the country. That is what the emissions reductions plan is there to do. It has a suite of mitigation measures based on the foundation of the 2016 pan-Canadian framework and the 2020 strengthened climate plan, considering the best available science, indigenous knowledge and the advice of the net-zero advisory body.
It is about listening to the experts across all sectors, to make sure we get this right.
Achieving Canada's climate objectives will be a whole-of-economy and a whole-of-society effort. When I talk about this, we are going to talk a bit more about the ERP. It includes new federal investments and supports across all sectors. When we are talking about these economy-wide measures, it includes one of the issues that has been raised today, the price on carbon pollution across the country, which is one of the cornerstones of Canada's economy-wide measures.
It is a market mechanism. That is why I always find it so fascinating when I hear Conservatives argue against carbon pricing. It is, in fact, a market mechanism. I am not sure why a party that says it supports market measures would be opposed to us doing exactly that: putting in a piece that works with the market on this.
Let me take it one step further. The part that is important about the federal climate action, our pricing of carbon pollution, is that in a backstop province, the money goes back to the people in that community.
For example, people in a backstop province, like mine in Ontario, actually, just last week, got a climate action incentive payment back. None of this stays with the federal government. Not a penny of it stays with the federal government. It goes back to the province where it was collected, and it goes back to the individuals who were paying it. That is very important, because I think that point gets lost sometimes in this debate.
I want to highlight that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, when looking at this, said not only, as we say all the time, that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back in this system than they paid, but also something else that I find very important, which is that the people who are not getting as much back tend to be the people with the most disposable income. That was the other thing the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. I think this is important when we are talking about affordability. We are talking about the fact that actually, the way the climate action incentive works, more money is paid back.
Basically, when we look at it the way the Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at it, people with the greatest need actually get more back, on average, when we look at the system.
I wanted to talk about some of the other measures in the ERP as we are going through it, and I am sorry that I jumped around a bit, but I get passionate about this issue because I care deeply about it.
The ERP is recapitalizing the low-carbon economy fund. The investment includes the creation of a new indigenous leadership fund to support clean energy and energy-efficiency projects led by first nations, Métis and Inuit communities and organizations.
As for our buildings, we never talk about the building sector enough in this place, but in the city of Toronto, which is my home city, buildings are our largest sources of emissions. We are going to have to tackle that. That is why we are developing a “net zero by 2050” building strategy to support the massive retrofit of the building stock needed to reach our climate targets. It also means putting in place contributions and loan funding to support the low-income stream of the greener homes grant program. I know that in my home city, and I hear about it when I am talking with people in other places as well, people are benefiting from this to make their homes more energy-efficient.
There is also funding to support deep retrofits of large buildings. This was actually support for community housing, social housing, in cities and other locations receiving supports through this kind of a program.
The other part that is really important is that just recently we announced funding to help people move from oil to heat pumps. That is funding that will support, in large part, homes in Atlantic Canada, but it is targeted to people with lower incomes. We recognize that affordability is a top issue for Canadians.
Right now, it is a hard time around the world. It is a hard time for Canadians. That is why we are here to work for them. At the same time, we are not going to lose sight of the need to take action on climate change.
1558 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 1:18:15 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 2:43:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, these are the falsehoods and failures of a tax plan disguised as an environmental plan. In four provinces, Canadians pay more in carbon taxes than they get back, and in the rest of the provinces, they do not get anything at all. Worse, the government has not hit a single environmental target. Emissions have gone up. If it were serious about making life more affordable, instead of freezing seniors, it would scrap the taxes.
When will it scrap the carbon tax?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 3:32:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and for whom I have great respect.
The Bloc Québécois agrees that polluters must pay and that there must be a price on pollution.
However, in April, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development wanted to determine whether this measure really targets a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. He concluded that it did for individual emissions, but not for those of large emitters.
Does my colleague not think that there is work to be done on that, to ensure that large emitters also pay their share?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 3:33:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly support the government's policy that a carbon tax is absolutely essential to managing the climate crisis. We have to take bold action. We will continue to address the need to bring emissions down to a level that is in line with our targets of 2030 and 2050. It is important to remember that as the rate of pollution tax increases, so does the rebate.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 3:45:46 p.m.
- Watch
My apologies, Madam Speaker. I got caught up in the moment and I made a mistake. I withdraw that.
I want to quote from this article, because it is damning.
It reads:
But all of Canada’s peers in the Group of Seven, or G-7, have managed to achieve economic growth while simultaneously cutting emissions, and Canada’s environmental commissioner says the country is struggling to bend the emissions curve. Among the Group of 20 major economies, or G-20, Canada ranks behind only Saudi Arabia when it comes to per capita emissions, and ahead of Australia.
That is a damning indictment of how the government's climate change policies are working, including its carbon tax.
I will finish by saying that this is the only government in the G7 that has raised taxes on fuel during a period of record high global energy prices. Even the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is pleading for relief.
The government needs to get in touch with Canadians and understand that 10% of this country is in dire straits facing a heating crisis this winter. It needs to do the right thing and cut the taxes on propane and heating oil.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 4:30:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member across the way. It was a bit of a vitriolic on my colleagues here and our stance on climate and the environment, which I think is much more progressive than what I have seen on that side of the House, because we are actually trying to come to solutions. However, solutions are one thing and talking about pretending to be serious is something else. I am going to catch him on this because he has failed every step he has made as far as reducing emissions goes. When we talk about being serious, I would like him to think seriously. I would like to go back to where the whole concept of carbon pricing started. It was advanced by a gentleman named William Nordhaus who won a Nobel Prize for it. A carbon tax was effectively one way of doing it.
Let us take a look at how the current government talks about the carbon tax it has. It has to throw regulations on it, including the clean fuel standard, the clean electricity standard and numerous others. It is atrocious. If it is thinking about a market mechanism, this is not a market mechanism. It is a tax. Can the member address that?
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 4:46:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the member can take that up with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This carbon tax has not hit a single environmental target. It has not reduced emissions. It started at $30, and then it went to $40. It is now $50, going to $170. At what point are they going to stop this madness?
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 4:50:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my deputy leader for her fiery and steadfast advocacy, not only for people who are struggling to make ends meet but also for the oil and gas industry. That is important to the Canadian economy and everyone in every region.
In December 2019, the Prime Minister broke his promise and announced that he would increase his carbon tax 566% over the level at the time. The Liberals applauded while Conservatives said what it was, which is a tax plan. It is not an environmental one, and it would inevitably cost Canadian families more to heat their homes, get to work and buy groceries. It would literally make everything more expensive for everyone.
Experts such as former Liberal MP Dan McTeague warned, “the price of the carbon tax on natural gas for home heating will now cost more than the price of the natural gas itself” and that it would “add an increase...of $900/year to an average residential natural gas bill. This will effectively double most homeowners home heating costs.”
A CBC column even cited the former parliamentary budget office Kevin Page's prediction that the Liberals' irresponsible big spending would create pressure to hike the carbon tax even higher because, of course, it goes into general revenue.
Incredibly, the Liberals have claimed that they will not raise taxes or the cost of living for Canadians. Only two years ago, the Prime Minister was asked if he would raises taxes, and he said, “we are not going to be saddling Canadians with extra costs”.
In 2019, when asked if the Liberals would increase the carbon tax, the then environment minister said, “The plan is not to increase the price post-2022.” Well, it is 2022, and it is clear that these were all empty words, since they are going to triple their carbon tax on everything.
It was not too long ago that the Prime Minister also said, “Whatever approach is chosen, this policy would be revenue-neutral for the federal government. All revenues generated under this system would stay in the province or territory where they are generated.” The problem with that claim is that this is not true either.
GST is charged on top of the carbon tax and the government's own balance sheet shows that revenue is almost a quarter of a billion dollars. As Conservatives warned repeatedly, as it did with inflation, the carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, since the government pockets hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of Canadians.
Most Canadians actually do not get back more than what they pay in federal carbon tax. Rebates do not and will never cover the direct and indirect cost hikes on everything caused by the carbon tax. For families in Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nunavut, the fuel charge backstop costs them more than they get back. That is the truth. After it is all said and done, the carbon tax costs households more than $1,100 in Manitoba, almost $1,500 in Ontario and Saskatchewan, and more than $2,000 in Alberta.
Of course, the carbon tax, as we have always warned, has a disproportionate impact on rural, remote and low-income Canadians. Whereas farmers get the same rebates as urban Canadians, they also pay tens of thousands of dollars a year more in additional carbon tax costs.
Grain Farmers of Ontario, for example, says that it will cost more than $36,000 a year on the average 800-acre farm, not including the costs of heating their homes and their barns, which, of course, already costs rural and remote Canadians more in the first place. A second carbon tax is coming too. Energy and industrial policy experts report that it will cost every Canadian almost $1,300 more, and it will hike household energy costs by 2.2% to 6.5% with the Liberal fuel standard.
Conservatives have heard loud and clear from Canadians the disastrous toll of the Liberal carbon tax on their ability to afford to make ends meet and to purchase basic necessities such as gas, groceries and home heating. This Conservative motion asks for real, tangible and immediate action. It is asking for a way to ease the government-imposed burden on Canadians right now, to cancel the carbon tax on all home heating fuels.
Why? As Conservatives have had to say over and over, home heating is not a luxury in Canada. It is just ridiculous to have to remind the NDP-Liberal costly coalition that Canada gets really cold during the winter. The average temperature in Atlantic Canada is always below zero. In Nunavut, it ranges from -15°C to -40°C.
On my farm in Lakeland, it is an average -15°C, but let me tell the members, we sure learned last December that we better calve later in the spring when, for about three weeks, the temperature hovered around -50°C, and it was lower at night. It is not an exaggeration to say that Canadians will literally freeze if they cannot afford the cost of home heating, yet the Liberals just keep driving it up.
In eastern Canada, people have to rely on heating oil, with 63% of Prince Edward Islanders and 47% of Nova Scotians using it to heat their homes.
Those Atlantic Canadians who have to use oil for home heating will face an average loss of $900 more a year because of the carbon tax. They also will be disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax 2.0, the Liberal fuel standard. The added costs are enormous. Furnace oil in Newfoundland and Labrador has already increased 54% compared to last year. It is just cruel that the Liberals tried to justify making that even worse and are ignoring the pleas from the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Around 47% of Canadians use natural gas to heat their homes. In Alberta, the average household pays $312 in carbon tax alone on natural gas. That will go up to more than $1,200 because of the Liberals' carbon tax hikes.
Ontarians currently pay $235 in carbon tax on their gas bill. That will triple to $745. We already know that gas bills have already increased across the country to almost $1,500 a year and these guys are just going to go ahead and make it worse anyway.
Propane is is used disproportionately by low-income and rural Canadians. It will cost almost $700 a year more to fill up propane tanks because of the Liberals' costly carbon tax hikes. All these costs are, of course, more intense during colder months. Home heating will double, on average, for Canadians this winter and some will face a 300% increase in their bill.
None of this is a surprise. In 2015, a Senate committee received a submission which clearly outlined the cost of home heating increases that Canadians would pay even at that current carbon tax rate. It predicted more than $300 a year for Alberta families. It is even more than that today. It predicted $231 for Ontario families. Today it is $235.
Canadians are at a breaking point. That is why Conservatives are pushing the Liberals to cancel their plan to triple, triple, triple the carbon tax. The Canadians I represent cannot afford more taxes. Tracy from Vermilion emailed me that over a quarter of her gas bill was carbon tax. She said, “This is gross and unattainable for most Canadians” and it is “completely avoidable and unnecessary.” She asked me to fight against this tax that is crippling her family and all Canadians.
Like many of my Conservative colleagues, I have spoken many times about how the Liberal carbon tax is hurting everyone in Lakeland, from young people just getting started to seniors on fixed incomes, but the Liberals have turned a deaf ear to every single one of them. Of course, it is also part of the Prime Minister’s anti-Canadian energy agenda, designed deliberately to make oil and gas more expensive to develop and use in Canada.
As the new Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, said recently that while the Prime Minister punishes Canadians for trying to heat their homes and aims to shut down Canada’s own world-class, responsible, innovative and transparent energy development, he is obviously just fine with oil and gas, as long as it is not created in Canada and as long as it comes from dirty dictatorships.
Instead of prioritizing Canadian businesses, jobs and paycheques, the Prime Minister killed energy infrastructure that would have ensured Canadian self-sufficiency and energy security, and would have boosted Canadian energy exports to the world. His approach actually supports despotic regimes that do not come anywhere close to Canada’s environmental standards and forces Canada to import more than, for example, 70,000 barrels per day of oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries where energy development benefits only an elite wealthy few and is rife with corruption, environmental devastation and horrible working conditions.
While Canadians are freezing in their homes this winter, their tax dollars, because of the Prime Minister, will fund dictator holidays and Putin’s war against Ukraine.
Other countries get it. Australia had a carbon tax and then scrapped it because of the detrimental impact on its economy and natural resources. It has a similar economy to Canada, but it is smaller geographically with warmer weather. It is less costly to develop its resources. It is not going back. The biggest oil and gas consumer and producer in the world is the United States. No president has imposed a carbon tax there, but it has actually achieved meaningful emissions reductions, unlike the Liberal government which has missed every single target it has ever set.
The reality is that Canada is in the midst of a full-blown cost of living crisis caused by the Liberal government. From my northern Alberta riding to Vancouver, to the riding that my friend from Thornhill represents, to Newfoundland, to the north, home heating is not a luxury. It is not a choice; it is a basic necessity. All MPs should support this measure to give relief or I would suggest they turn off the heating in their offices and homes until the summer.
1737 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 5:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course, it was actually the former Conservative government that implemented the polluter pay principle, and what Conservatives are saying is that the proper, affordable, accessible, feasible and real path toward environmental stewardship and lowering emissions is technology and not taxes. This is what is so confusing about the proponents of the Liberal model of carbon tax, who also want to shut down the oil and gas industry at the same time. Among private sector investors in renewable and alternative energy technologies, 75% of that investment in clean tech and innovation comes from traditional oil and gas companies in Canada.
Here is the issue: The Liberals need to justify their policy by showing that it works, but they have not met a single solitary target, so instead they are just being cold-hearted and cruel and are punishing Canadians.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
