SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 144

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 8, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 144 - Dec/8/22
Mr. Mark Gerretsen
  • Dec/8/22 4:36:13 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps they are embarrassed. However, here is the best part about it. I will read what members of the Conservative Party said when they released this plan prior to the last election. The member for Durham, as we know, brought forward the plan, because he was the leader at the time. He said, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” The member for Calgary Centre, who I know has asked questions challenging this in the House today, said, “I think it's an evolution for parts of our party—but there's also many parts of our party that have been pushing forward for environmental solutions of all types.” This is a sitting member who is supportive of it, and this was what he said when he ran in the last election. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
153 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 144 - Dec/8/22
Mr. Mark Gerretsen
  • Dec/8/22 4:37:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I think they might both be right. I am just trying to wrap my head around the position of the Conservatives. If the answer is that they had absolutely no faith in their previous leader and the decision he took, that is fine. They should just say it. If the issue is that Conservatives were upset when the member for Durham put it in their platform, I did not hear any of them voicing their concerns during the election. This platform was issued in May or June. They started talking about this well before the election, and I do not remember hearing the member for Calgary Centre say he was against it. As a matter of fact, he said the exact opposite, as I just read out, and so did so many Conservatives. They just sat there and accepted it as being part of their plan. They went out, knocked on doors and tried to convince Canadians of their plan. Albeit, it was a different and, in my opinion, flawed way of doing it because they were basically saying that, instead of putting a price on pollution and giving back a rebate of the exact same amount to everybody, they would have liked to put a price on pollution, but it would go into a savings account, then using that savings account, people would have a catalogue from which they could determine how to use their points, just like Aeroplan. They would have been able to choose what they wanted with their points. They could have gotten a bicycle. They could have given carbon credits somewhere. They could have done this or that. I do not think it was a good plan, but at least it was a plan, and at least it was a plan that understood and respected how the market works. If we put a price on something, it will change the way people look at making their purchases. This is not rocket science. This is economics 101. If we make something more expensive, fewer people are going to want to buy it. It eventually changes the way people look at making their purchases, and they move in another direction. It is not the first time this has happened. We can look at purchasing cigarettes, for example. Every time they get a bit more expensive, people start to make the choice that maybe it is time for them to quit. This is not something that is brand new. Conservatives would want us to believe that this is something that is absolutely foreign, out there and incomprehensible. The party whose members tout themselves as the stewards of the economy and those who know how an economy works better than anybody else cannot even understand the basic fundamental principle that, if we put a price on something, it will make it less attractive for people to buy, but that is where we are. I find it very hypocritical and very rich that Conservatives come in here, time after time, bringing forward these motions, seven since the last election, to challenge something that they supposedly believed in. In the last election, they did believe in it, and they put it in their platform. The member for Regina—Lewvan, who looks like he is ready to ask me a question, even though my time is not up, ran on it. He knocked on doors and said that he would like to talk about securing the environment. They had a plan to secure the environment, the Conservative plan to combat climate change. He ran on it. He knocked on doors. He was convincing people that this was the right way to go, yet here we are. Now he is involved in seven motions basically saying the exact same thing, which is that pricing pollution does not work, and all I really want, and why I have asked it countless times today and leading up to today, is for one Conservative to get up and explain why. They could just say that they had absolutely no confidence in the member for Durham when he put forward that proposal, that they regret he did it and wish he had not. That would at least attempt to explain what is going on here, but instead, I am met with complete and utter avoidance and silence when I ask that question. I just want to understand why Conservatives have done a 180° turn on this issue. I know that life is very difficult for Canadians right now, and in particular those who are the most vulnerable. They are really struggling. I do not think it helps when Conservatives get up to say that the price on pollution is going to directly affect them, when they know full well that the money that is collected through that pricing mechanism is redistributed. As a matter of fact, more people get more back than they end up spending. The Conservatives should know this. They do know this, but they will not miss an opportunity to try to convince people that that is not the case. Why are they doing it? They are doing it solely for political gain. In their calculus, they have decided that, if we try to convince people that this price on pollution is going to make their lives worse, that means people will vote for us in the next election. It is extremely unfortunate that Conservatives would use this as an opportunity when we are talking about trying to protect and save our environment. It is unfortunate that they would do this when we know that we have to act quickly now for future generations, in particular for our children.
949 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border