44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 8, 2022 10:00AM
- Dec/8/22 10:26:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my opposition colleague for finally recognizing that there are at least some problems with the environment and the fact there is a price on pollution.
He talked about the price that businesses have to pay. Does he really believe that pollution should be free or does he believe that we should put a price on pollution? Should people be able to pollute without consequence or should we instead tell them that the more they pollute, the more they must pay?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 10:40:13 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to serve on the same committee as the member opposite, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The member mentioned in his speech Sylvain Charlebois, who came before our committee. Just the other day when asked a question about whether the price on pollution is affecting food price inflation he, very explicitly, said no. Does the member opposite recollect that?
The other thing I will just add is that the recent report done by the Canadian Climate Institute shows there is going to be $25 billion in losses due to climate change by 2025, and that the number is going to rise to $100 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. This actually undermines the entire growth of our economy. How does the member reconcile that with the statements he has made today?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:00:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg South for his excellent speech today and for his answers to the questions, because he really hit the nail on the head.
This opposition motion makes a brief reference to pollution pricing. Pollution pricing is a good thing, because pollution has a price. It is not free to pollute. My hon. colleague from Winnipeg South mentioned that in his province, floods that should only happen once every 100 years have occurred twice. It has happened twice.
In my own riding, the Ottawa River burst its banks and caused flooding in 2017 and 2019. Statistically speaking, such floods should happen once a century, but they happened twice in three years. The climate crisis is here, and we need to get rid of practices that are not working anymore. The days when individuals, businesses, organizations and governments could pollute with impunity have passed. That is why I am very proud to say that we are going to be putting a price on pollution.
I am a firm believer in capitalism. I think it is good for people to earn money. We applaud all those who want to make money by producing a good or providing a service. If they pollute while doing so, however, they must pay. I have confidence in the wisdom and ingenuity of Canadians, and certainly in our entrepreneurs, who will find ways to produce goods while reducing their carbon emissions. That means they will pay less, their product will be more efficient and cheaper, and people will buy it because it works. That is the idea behind pollution pricing.
However, the motion before us today attempts to link the inflation we are experiencing today, the increase in prices, with pollution pricing. There is no link. When my colleague from Whitby was asking a question, he referred to a witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, on which my colleague sits. This witness is famous in Quebec and knows agriculture like the back of his hand. He was asked if the carbon tax was contributing to inflation and driving grocery prices up, and he said that it was not.
What is causing inflation is the global context. There are several factors. First of all, there was the pandemic. All the companies suddenly had to shut down to make sure that people were safe and that the COVID-19 virus did not spread. Eventually, thanks to the innovations that led to the development of vaccines, the economy started to reopen, following the advice of public health authorities.
All of a sudden, there were a lot of people all wanting to buy things at the same time. They wanted their freedom back. One or two people would have been okay, but when the whole world wants to buy things, it creates significant demand. Problems arose with supply chains around the world, especially in China because of its zero-COVID policy. That policy led to plant closures and disrupted supply chains worldwide. As if that were not enough, there is also Vladimir Putin's abhorrent war on Ukraine. It has hampered the flow of goods, creating product shortages and doubling price increases.
These are global trends that are happening, so what do we do? Canadians are facing price increases, but, unlike the official opposition, our government has an answer. Our answer is to help the most vulnerable Canadians. We are doing that in several different ways. Let me explain.
The first thing we want to do is make life more affordable for Canadians. With Bill C-30, we doubled the goods and services tax credit for a period of six months. The GST credit, which is in place to help the most vulnerable Canadians, is a tax-free payment to low- and modest-income individuals and families. Regardless of the circumstances, these people need a hand, especially these days. Our measure will put $2.5 billion in the pockets of around 11 million Canadians, and these individuals and families will be very happy to have this money for the next six months.
With Bill C-31, we created the Canada dental benefit. Once again, this benefit will put about $1,300 in Canadians' pockets to ensure that kids 12 and under have access to dental care. There is something else, too. We also paid $500 to 1.8 million low-income Canadian renters who are struggling to pay the rent. This is another targeted, non-inflationary support measure that will make a big difference for those in need.
Earlier this year, we increased old age security by 10% for people aged 75 and over. I can also talk about the Canada workers benefit, which is another way we are providing targeted assistance to support Canadians in need. This benefit is a refundable tax credit offered to Canadians and families who are working but earning a low or modest income.
All of these targeted and reasonable measures will help Canadians get through this global crisis. We can do all this while also fighting the climate crisis. That is what we have done in Canada. This will create a more sustainable economy, a healthier environment, and social cohesion. As parliamentarians, what are we good for if not bringing everyone together?
885 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:13:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am not completely familiar with that private member's bill. Nevertheless, I know that the government is always there to support our farmers.
We will support them by fighting against climate change. We are well aware that the climate crisis is something that we have to deal with today, tomorrow and in the coming years.
Farmers know in their gut that climate change is coming. We have to work on that, and that is why we always need to put a price on pollution and implement a number of policies that will help create a greener, more sustainable Canada.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:54:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the issues I have brought up is that the Conservatives seem to be on their own island when it comes to the price on pollution, but it has not always been that way. As the member will recall, in the last federal election, all major national parties supported a price on pollution. Even the Conservatives made a commitment to have a price on pollution. I wonder if he can provide his thoughts on this, that what the Conservative said at that time was fairly misleading, given the fact they told the electorate that they would support a price on pollution and given the position they are taking today.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 12:05:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the issue of the price on pollution is something that has been around for many years. We have seen provincial governments of different political stripes bring it in. We have seen the national government in support of a price on pollution, along with New Democrats, the Bloc members and the Greens. It would appear as if the Conservative Party is alone in its opposition to a price on pollution.
I wonder if my colleague could provide some of her thoughts on the caribou population and the impact on environmental change in northern Canada, just to get a better sense of awareness for our Conservative friends of the real impact of climate change.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 12:41:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process we have with our rules in the House. Opposition members are afforded the opportunity to bring opposition day motions. I have talked about this in the past in terms of how opposition parties will establish different types of priorities.
I will give credit to the Conservatives. They are definitely focused. They are focused on the price on pollution. They are on a little island of their own, not only here in Canada but around the world, where they are now convinced that a price on pollution is bad.
I believe this is the seventh time the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, has decided to bring this issue to the floor. I do not know if it is because it likes to feel really important, being the only party in the House that supports getting rid of a price on pollution.
After all, the Bloc supports a price on pollution. The New Democrats support a price on pollution. Members of the Green Party support a price on pollution. We all know the Government of Canada supports a price on pollution. It should be no surprise.
Back in 2015, the world came together in Paris. In the dialogue that occurred there, Canada was well represented by all sorts of stakeholders, including provincial entities. What came out of that, and was one of the ideas that really resonated, was the need to have a price on pollution.
Shortly after forming the government, we made the decision to listen to what Canadians were saying, appreciate the importance of our environment and implement a national policy ensuring a price on pollution.
In Canada, we were not alone. There were provincial jurisdictions that already had a price on pollution. Members might be surprised to know this, but in potentially the first jurisdiction in North America to take the principle of a price on pollution and put it into a budgetary measure, the Conservative Party did this in the province of Alberta many years ago.
The Province of Quebec, under Jean Charest, brought in a price on pollution. There have been a few leadership contests within the Conservative Party, but in the most recent one, interestingly enough, Jean Charest was one of the candidates. He received substantial support, and he too was an advocate.
His Liberal government, in the province of Quebec, brought in a price on pollution. The Province of British Columbia has a price on pollution.
People around the world are looking for ideas. We came back from the Paris conference saying we needed to get onside and recognize that a price on pollution is one of the most effective ways of being able to deal with the climate crisis of the century.
I can appreciate there are climate deniers within the Conservative Party. There are actual members of Parliament on the Conservative side who do not recognize that climate change is a reality.
When we first brought in a price on pollution, the Conservative Party actually opposed it. In the lead-up to the last election, not the last Conservative leadership race but the one before that, the Conservatives actually changed their position from their original one of opposing the price on pollution.
Just last year, during the election, the then leader of the Conservative Party actually put it forward in the Conservatives' platform. All Conservative candidates, in 338 ridings in Canada coast to coast to coast, had a platform document that said the Conservative Party of Canada supports a price on pollution.
Another leadership contest took place and the Conservatives now are not really too sure what they are saying. They just skip answering the questions when asked about the price on pollution, as I just finished demonstrating by my question for the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. They made the decision that it is just bad, that Canadians should believe them and that we should just be getting rid of the price on pollution. So says the new leader of the Conservative Party.
Do members remember the other idea the leader of the Conservative Party had, about cryptocurrency? The leader of the Conservative Party told Canadians that, if they want to fight inflation, they should invest in cryptocurrency. How did that idea pan out for the Conservative Party? Much like the most recent position of the Conservative Party on the price on pollution, that idea did not fly.
At the end of the day, those individuals who followed the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada have lost a great deal of money, well over 60% of their investments. In fact when I say “over 60%”, I am probably being a little conservative in that estimate, as many people have lost a lot more. Let us think of the seniors the Conservatives often talk about, as if they were advocates for seniors. We still have not even heard any regret or apology coming from the leader of the Conservative Party or from any Conservative candidate in regard to that idea.
What are the Conservatives waiting for now with the price on pollution? They like to say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, as they call it. In Winnipeg North, eight out of 10 people actually get a net benefit with the price on pollution. There is the climate incentive cheque, which is given out four times a year. The Conservatives should be saying that, if they are going to get rid of the price on pollution, they are also going to be getting rid of those rebate cheques. Winnipeg North is not alone. Eight out of every 10 homes in the country receive them.
When the Conservatives say there is going to be a tripling of the price on pollution, and of course they are not talking about this year but about an increase over the next eight years, what they do not tell Canadians is that the rebate will also increase. We have the price on pollution and we have the rebate. All the Conservatives want to talk about is the price on pollution. They are more concerned about the bumper sticker, going into the next election, saying, “Axe the carbon tax.” That is what their priority is. It is not about the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment for the Conservatives. They do not even have a plan, as has been illustrated time and again. The last time they actually had a plan was for the price on pollution, and they abandoned that plan.
The Conservative Party is not reflecting the desire of Canadians to see some sort of plan dealing with the environment. To make matters even worse, they are spreading misinformation intentionally.
If the Conservatives were to come into Winnipeg North and we were to do a bit of door knocking, the Conservative candidate would stand beside me and say they were going to get rid of the price on pollution. However, I would say that if they get rid of the price on pollution, it would mean they would also get rid of the rebate. A person would get more money because of the rebate than they would pay on the pollution, generally speaking, for 80% of my constituents. Then, not only that, but at least as a government we are recognizing that the environment does matter and is an important issue, unlike the Conservative Party.
I suspect that if the sole debate were on that issue in the constituency of Winnipeg North, I would get more votes than I received in the last federal election. I am very grateful for the over 50% I got in the last election, but I believe I would even get more support if that were the only ballot issue being decided, because the rebate puts more money in the pockets of my constituents, and it deals with the price on pollution for climate change.
When we talk about farmers, the department of agriculture spends far more today than it did when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister. In fact we are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars, well past a billion dollars, supporting farmers, supporting our prairie farmers. We had one Conservative member say that this year was the third best on record in Canada for our farmers, and in particular our prairie farmers. My focus in Manitoba is canola, wheat and flax, all of these wonderful bumper crops, not to mention the other commodities, whether in the pork industry, the cattle industry or our chicken industry. All of these industries, we value.
That is why we have a very proactive Minister of Agriculture. Not only is she proactive, but we are providing cash support. We are ensuring we can move toward a greener economy, just like other countries around the world. There is an expectation that Canada has to demonstrate leadership, and I believe it is important we do just that. By recognizing the importance of moving forward in a positive way with the environment, we will be in a much better position in the months and years ahead to ensure opportunities well into the future. We need to do this so Canada can continue to play that important role it does in the world, whether by providing food or through the many other industries Canada leads in.
The Conservative Party likes to say this is all about the issue of inflation. Inflation is a very serious issue. I like to think it does not matter what side of the House we are sitting on. We all recognize how important inflation is to address as an issue. The Conservatives bring forward a motion that really would not deal with the issue they are talking about in a tangible way that would assist the majority of Canadians. We have put into place, over the last number of months in particular, a series of policy announcements that do deal with and support Canadians in a very real and tangible way.
When the Conservative Party says that it is concerned about inflation and the government needs to do more to support Canadians, unlike the Conservative Party, we are not going to sit back and just watch things take place. There is a role for government.
Before the Conservatives make the suggestion, as they are now, that government should not play a role, let me talk about the larger picture of inflation outside of Canadian boundaries. We know Canada is doing better with its inflation rate than the United States of America. We are doing better than England and many different European countries. We are well below the average of the G7 countries overall. From a world perspective, our inflation rate is doing well.
I find this interesting. I looked up the inflation rates of the United States and Canada over the last two years of Stephen Harper. I think this is appropriate, because the Conservatives are trying to tell us what we need to do, as if they have wonderful experience in dealing with inflation. In the last two years of Stephen Harper, the United States of America's inflation rate was lower than Canada's. In other words, Canada had a higher inflation rate in the last two years of Stephen Harper. Today, if we look at our administration, in the last two years our inflation rate has been lower than that of the United States.
I do not think we need to follow the advice of the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular the leader, who recommends things like cryptocurrency, to deal with the types of policies that are not only important in having an impact on the overall inflation rate, but that we can use to support Canadians at a time when inflation hurts. Even though I pointed to the U.S.A. and how Canada is doing relatively well, my constituents, like everyone else in Canada, are hurting with respect to inflation. We are very much aware of the grocery prices and how much it hurts their pocketbooks. I too am offended that farmers are putting their blood, sweat and tears into ensuring we have food production but are not reaping in huge profits or rewards for their efforts to anywhere near the same degree others are. There are things we can do to help, and I could list them off.
We can talk all we want, but the Conservatives continue to vote against measures to support Canadians, whether with respect to issues like the dental program for children under the age of 12 or the Canada housing benefit to provide rental subsidies that would benefit two million Canadians. There are already 35,000 children who have put in applications for the dental program since we brought it in a couple of weeks ago. Also, the doubling of the GST rebate for the next six months will benefit 11 million Canadians. When it comes to the Canada workers benefit, by making quarterly payments, thousands of Canadians will benefit from that. There is the elimination of the federal interest on student loans, which will benefit thousands of students, and that is not to mention child care.
This government, unlike the Conservative Party, recognizes there is something the Government of Canada can do, and I can tell members that every Liberal member of Parliament will continue to fight, day in and day out, to ensure that we can marginalize the negative impacts of inflation, because that is the right thing to do, even though as a nation we are still doing better than the U.S.A. and most G7 and G8 countries.
2277 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 1:02:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the specifics of that answer would probably be best put, in terms of a question, to the Minister of Environment, but what I would note is that with respect to the province of Quebec, I need to recognize Jean Charest. He was, even though he was a Liberal premier at the time, very progressive in his thinking in regard to the environment. He ultimately led the country, through the province of Quebec. He was a very strong nationalist who understood that the environment matters and who led a lot of initiatives.
That is why I think, when we take a look at it, with regard to that last federal Conservative leadership race, where Jean Charest actually did quite well, he has got to be looking at the Conservative Party's positioning today from a Progressive Conservative position of saying that a price on pollution is good and remembering how he led the country through the province of Quebec while he was the premier. To see the Conservatives taking this sort of position, I suspect there are a lot of Conservatives who are wondering what the heck has happened to the Conservative Party of Canada.
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 1:05:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for listing all the initiatives that the NDP have brought forward, like dental care and the rent subsidy, but my question for him is a bit more concrete. I have been sitting in the House all week, listening to the Liberals asking Conservatives how they can face their constituents when the Conservatives promised to put a price on pollution and are now against it.
I am wondering how the member faces his constituents when the Liberal government promised to put that price on pollution and promised to deal with our climate crisis and has done so in such a poor way that we have met none of our targets and are at the bottom of the barrel for actually dealing with the climate crisis in this country.
On one side, we have some Conservatives who have been, frankly, very dishonest with their constituents. On the other side, we have the government, which has actually done nothing for our climate crisis.
How does he face his constituents?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 1:06:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I talk to my constituents about putting into place a national policy, so that in every province, no matter where a person lives, there is a price on pollution. I talk about the two billion trees that are going to be planted as a result of policy.
It is interesting. We often get the question, “Where are those two billion trees?” They start as seedlings, and it takes a little while for them to grow. I am very confident that we will continue to look at ways, whether it is the banning of single-use plastics or the planting of trees or having a price on pollution, not to mention the numerous budgetary measures to support getting Canada on the right road to a greener economy. That is what I would be telling my constituents.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 1:21:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read something for the member. It says, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” This is from the platform that the member ran on and was elected on in his riding on September 20, 2021. He ran on a platform of pricing pollution, and now the Conservatives stand before the House and suggest they are dead set against it. The people who voted for him thought he believed in this. How can the Conservatives be so hypocritical as to now come and demand everything but this option of pricing pollution?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:27:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have asked my question for the member a number of times and I hope he will answer it, because nobody else seems to want to.
Conservatives ran on pricing pollution. The member was elected in September of 2021. When his constituents went to the ballot boxes to cast their votes for him, they were under the impression that he and his party were in favour of pricing pollution. Now, time after time, Conservatives bring forward motions to the contrary.
Can the member please try to explain to the House and Canadians why Conservatives are suddenly taking a different position on this than the one that they ran on?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:32:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.
Seven times since this Parliament was formed, Conservatives have brought in motions regarding pricing pollution like the one we have here today: March 23, 2022; April 4, 2022; June 7, 2022; September 28, 2022; October 3, 2022; October 4, 2022; and today. Seven times they have brought this in. Six times it has been defeated. In all likelihood it will again be defeated today, and they are absolutely relentless about this issue.
To make it even more confusing, they ran on this in the last election. On election day, September 20, 2021, when the Conservatives had their constituents go to the polls to vote for them, their constituents voted thinking that they agreed with pricing pollution.
This is from their election platform, which says, “Conservatives will work with the provinces to implement an innovative, national, Personal Low Carbon Savings Account. This will put a price on carbon”. The plan goes on to compare it to the current plan that the government has, saying, “our plan is just as effective in emission reduction”.
This is what they ran on, and since the election, they have brought forward seven motions against pricing pollution.
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:44:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, it is easy to talk about Conservatives for so long when they give me so much material. Second of all, I will answer that question. Clearly, at some point along the way, it was determined that it would be most effective to raise the rate again, and that is why they did it.
Did members see how easy that was? I answered the question. A decision was made after the fact that we actually needed to increase it again.
Now, I would love for a member from the Conservative Party to stand up and show me exactly how easy it is to answer the question of why they have done a complete 180 on this issue of pricing pollution.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:48:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what am I hearing here? Is the Bloc Québécois now suddenly against pricing pollution? That is what it sounds like.
The Bloc Québécois is falling into the exact same trap that the Conservatives have, which is saying that emissions in this particular sector have gone up and, therefore, it is a failed plan. They are doing that because they know there are too many variables that go into this. It is not as linear as the member would like to suggest, and there is more to it than just the simple answer he gave.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:48:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the opposition motion today. As I usually do, I will go over the parts of the text and address each part accordingly.
First, the Conservatives keep saying that the price of pollution will be tripled, but they fail to mention two very important things. First, the money collected will be given back to individuals and businesses and, second, the price will increase progressively over the next eight years until 2030.
The second part of the motion is on the estimated increase in the price of food in 2023. I think that the Conservatives failed to illustrate and quantify the role that the price on carbon plays in this increase.
When one actually reads through the report, it makes clear that the key drivers to food inflation we are seeing, both in 2022 and what is being projected next year, are because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia represent 27% of the global grain market, which has been restricted and we have has seen access challenges. We are seeing rising prices on oil and gas as a result of the war as well.
Supply chains are also being affected. We have just gone through COVID and there is still a zero-COVID policy in China, one of the major manufacturers and distributors of products for around the world. I know there can be a really important foreign affairs discussion on the Canada-China relationship, but right now, the supply chain is still being affected.
There is labour as well. We have a million unfilled jobs in Canada, and western countries around the world are dealing with similar challenges with demographics. As baby boomers retire, that large demographic works its way out of the system of workers. For me, that is what is driving this, and that is what the report says, at page 15, which is extremely important. However, the Conservatives are laying this all on one policy choice, and I do not think they have been able to illustrate how that represents a significant increase whatsoever in the price increases we are seeing.
It is also important to recognize that nearly all farm inputs are exempt from the carbon price. Yes, transportation fuels and other indirect costs can and will have an impact, but with Bill C-234, which is before the House right now, as it has been reported back from committee, we might see an exemption altogether on direct farm costs associated with any type of carbon pricing. That is because there is a recognition that, yes, we are encouraging farmers, and farmers are taking on great innovation themselves. The government has put almost $1.5 billion in the last couple of budgets to help make that transition, but some of those commercial technologies are not readily available. That is the balance that we have walked thus far.
The third and fourth part of the motion concerns the challenges in financial affordability. On this side of the House, as I have already said, we are concerned about the cost of living and we are bringing in measures to address that. This gives me the opportunity to talk about the current economic situation, the days to come and what we need to do to find a balance between supporting vulnerable people and maintaining our solid financial position.
It does give me an opportunity to talk about where Canada's economic and relative debt position is. It is important because there might be some folks in the public gallery who have been watching this debate or watching it at home, and my God, they would think that things are completely broken in this country. That is the message the leader of the official opposition sends and it is very problematic. Canada actually has one of the strongest records in the G7 on economic performance. As I mentioned, I do not think any parliamentarian in this House would somehow suggest that there are not challenges and that there are not affordability difficulties, but when we look at our economic position to comparative countries, we are extremely strong.
I find it ironic that members of the Conservative Party stand up and talk about government spending when they were supportive of many of the measures that this government took during the pandemic. Now that the Conservatives have been in place and now that there has been a cost to the Canadian treasury to make sure we were protecting Canadians and protecting businesses, they talk about how government is spending too much money. It is that hyprocrisy.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said it far better than I can in saying that the Conservative Party actually ran on a carbon price just 13 months ago during the election in 2021. He is right. Thirteen months ago, the Conservative Party said this was a good idea. Now the Conservatives stand before us saying they never would have thought up such an idea. It is that mixed messaging that creates challenges in terms of Canadians believing whether or not the Conservative Party is authentic in its beliefs.
Also, we just passed the fall economic statement. The third reading vote happened about an hour ago. It is important to recognize that not only is this government walking a key balance between making sure that vulnerable Canadians have the supports they need during this difficult time, but we are also maintaining a strong fiscal position. We are not being irresponsible with government spending.
Again, I want to go back to those comparative numbers. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We also have the lowest actual deficit as a proportion of our debt in the G7 as well. When we look at other comparable countries, the Conservatives would paint a picture that somehow things are very poor in this country. Actually we are doing very well in an international context.
I want to talk a bit more around some of the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party as it relates to the things we talked about. There is a Parliamentary Budget Officer report that talks about some of the money the government has spent during the pandemic as we try to collect money from some individuals who might not have been eligible. The Conservatives voted on those measures in this House and supported them at the time. We have heard comments this week that somehow this is terrible and that the government should have had more accountability. We have been very clear that, had the program been tightly designed, so much so that it would have taken weeks or months on end to get that program money out to the individuals in question, they would have been in a much more dire situation. In fact, that same PBO report said that if the government had not done what it had done, poverty would have doubled in this country.
I want to remind my Conservative colleagues, when they reference that report, that if their suggestion is that we should have been even more bureaucratic and put in even more program requirements at a time of incredible instability, and the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about what would move forward, we wanted to be able to act quickly. We knew there would still have to be an accounting on the other side, and that is something this government will be taking forward in the days ahead, but we did it to protect Canadians. We did it to make sure that the economic principles of the country were strong, and that Canadians knew we had their backs, and that is exactly why I am proud to stand on this side of the House.
The last thing is on carbon pricing, because that is the topic of the day. The member for Kingston and the Islands did a good job when one of my colleagues joked about just cutting that 10 minutes and playing it again. Maybe we would, but there have been a lot of questions about Atlantic Canada. I want to remind my constituents, indeed those in Atlantic Canada, that notwithstanding the Conservative Party making the pitch that it is going to apply this winter, the carbon price will not apply to home heating this winter in Atlantic Canada.
I want to really highlight the programs that we have put in place.
There is the $500 million that we have put out. Today in question period, the Minister of Immigration talked about this program providing $5,000 grants to help homes transition off home heating oil. First and foremost, that is about affordability. That is about saving thousands of dollars a year in energy bill costs. That matters to my constituents and people across the country, but particularly in Atlantic Canada. Of course, it also is beneficial for the environment.
I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues. That is one of my favourite parts of this, so I will sit down and look forward to taking them.
1508 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 5:14:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, every day that I sit in this seat, I think of the people who put me here, and I think most people in this House do the same thing.
I would like to understand how to apply the motion today to provinces that have themselves brought in their own climate action plans and pricing on pollution. How does this motion serve those provinces? The Government of Canada did not apply the pricing all across Canada.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
