44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 8, 2022 10:00AM
- 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 5:02:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do want to ask the hon. member about carbon pricing on the largest emitters.
The Canadian Climate Institute, the institute that our federal government established, analyzed the federal carbon pricing benchmark. While it agreed that carbon pricing works and strong carbon pricing is essential to any credible climate plan, it highlighted how it does not do enough to curb industrial emissions. Output-based pricing creates loopholes for the largest emitters. Again, the Liberals were saying the right things on climate and doing something on carbon pricing, but are unwilling to match their actions to the scale of the crisis we are facing and are unwilling to make the biggest polluters pay their fair share.
Does my colleague agree the government needs to fix the output-based pricing system?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 5:03:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her kindness in letting me see our former premier, Darrell Dexter, yesterday. It was nice to a have chance to connect with him.
On an output-based pricing system, I think there is a conversation to be had about that in terms of trying to find that equilibrium. At the same time, we have to make sure our major emitters and our major corporations that are involved in economic trade or businesses that are particularly vulnerable are not necessarily priced out. That is an economic competitive question that I think needs to be analyzed before we go there.
109 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
