44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/7/23 10:42:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things the Conservatives are is very consistent, in the sense that they neither understand nor appreciate the policy issues related to our environment. They are, indeed, climate deniers. Today, we are going to be debating the Conservatives' agenda to get rid of the price on pollution. There would be a substantial cost to that.
The member, in his election platform, indicated to his voters that he supported a price on pollution. How does he justify the 180° flip-flop on that issue?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:54:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is misinformation. Many would say it is misleading. Let me put it this way. A constituent of mine is told that 80% of Canadians will receive more money back than they pay for the price on pollution, and that has been affirmed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, the Conservatives, including the leader of the Conservative Party, who is leading the Donald Trump charge, are saying that getting rid of the price on pollution is going to put more money in the pockets of Canadians, and that is not true.
How would members classify that? I cannot be bold and blunt about what the leader is saying, because it would be unparliamentary. However, if we look at the information the leader is talking about, it is misleading Canadians. At the end of the day, everything the Conservative Party is doing today seems to be focused on that one issue. It is completely ignoring the environment. We are waiting to see any form of a climate plan from the Conservative Party.
The last time I can recall the Conservatives standing in the chamber talking about their environmental plan was when Erin O'Toole was their leader, and they said they supported a price on pollution. A Conservative member just asked where he is. The Conservatives kicked him out and he is no longer around. There have been a few Conservative leaders, but they really like the current one. Maybe it is because of the far-right element. Most, if not all, Conservatives seem to be onside with moving to the far right, and it is at great cost.
As I pointed out, all Conservatives who campaigned in the election two years ago made it very clear that they supported a price on pollution. It was in their election platform. However, that has changed. That is a fact.
310 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:11:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, regarding the first aspect of the member's question, that is why I reinforced at the beginning of my comments that the real objective for the Conservative Party is to have a bumper sticker that reads, “Axe the tax”. That is really what the Conservatives are hoping to achieve. On getting rid of the price on pollution, the related facts are completely irrelevant to the Conservative Party. That is unfortunate because there is so much misinformation being spread throughout the country regarding what the Conservative Party is actually doing.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:17:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada is so focused on getting rid of the price on pollution that its members are actually voting against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The excuse they are using is that it is because they do not believe there should be a price on pollution in Ukraine. Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. That is how ridiculously reckless the leader of the Conservative Party is. He is prepared to vote against, for the first time ever, a trade agreement between Ukraine and Canada at a time of war in Europe because they have a price on pollution.
The price on pollution is something the world is moving toward. Only the leader of the Conservative Party cannot conceptualize the negative impact his reckless policy and irresponsible approach to the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement are having, not only here in Canada, but also abroad.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:46:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder about the problems of having the leader of the Conservative Party going around indicating misinformation in regard to the price on pollution. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that and what he believes the impact will be, just in terms of the general knowledge of the population?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 12:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Victoria for her very interesting speech. I also thank her for all her hard work and her passion for the environmental and climate emergency files, as well as for housing and first nations issues, both in British Columbia and across the country.
The Conservatives are still pathologically obsessed with the carbon tax, which is really a price on pollution. When we talk about a price on pollution, we are clearly talking about the environment, climate emergencies and the climate crisis. Speaking of the environment, I cannot help but mention the Liberal government's announcement this morning about a cap on greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector.
Two years ago, at COP26 in Glasgow, the Prime Minister said we had to implement a cap on greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector. We waited two years. What we are seeing today is worse than anything we feared, worse than anything we imagined. I am sure my colleagues will believe me when I say that we have quite a rich imagination.
It is appalling to ask society as a whole to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45%. In fact we could have a discussion about the proportionality and burden of responsibility of every Canadian and the Canadian economy with respect to the targets we need to reach to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. We are heading more for 2 degrees. We should be prepared to reduce our emissions by 50% to 60%, because, per capita, Quebeckers and Canadians create a lot of pollution and produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
Let us consider a 45% decrease. Two years ago, we were told that the oil and gas sector would probably have to reduce its emissions by 31%. That means 10% to 15% are now gone; that is a gift from the government, thank you very much. This morning we learned that the oil and gas sector no longer has to reduce its emissions by 31%, but that the Liberals would be happy with a 16% to 20% decrease. That is ridiculous. It is irresponsible for our children and for future generations. Given the climate emergency, that is a joke. Why is it a joke? Because this government listens only to lobbyists from big oil.
We said it yesterday, and again today: In the past two years, there have been 2,000 meetings with lobbyists and representatives from oil and gas companies. Considering there are 365 days in a year, that amounts to more than three meetings a day between oil lobbyists and the ministerial offices of a government that calls itself pro-environment. That includes Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Day, Easter, Hanukkah and more. Then we wonder who the Liberals are listening to. There were three times more meetings between oil company representatives and the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council, Treasury Board and Finance than there were meetings with environmental groups.
That is the root cause of what we are seeing this morning. This joke they call a “cap” is nothing but rubbish. There is nothing in it except a blank cheque to the oil companies so they can continue to do business as usual. Not only has the reduction dropped to 16% to 20%, but these corporations have no obligations until 2030. They have carte blanche for the next seven years and after that a bit of flexibility. That means they will be allowed to continue increasing production. I do not know how they are going to achieve a 16% to 20% reduction while continuing to increase production. There is so much flexibility in the document presented by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change that it reminds me of a yoga class with people able to perform the most absolutely incredible contortions.
This is totally irresponsible on the part of a government that claims to care about the climate and the environment, but then puts this kind of nonsense forward this morning, even though oil and gas is the economic sector that emits the most greenhouse gases. I believe it is responsible for 24% of total emissions. That is huge, even more than transportation.
The increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 is mainly due to an 88% increase in emissions from the oil and gas sector. It emitted 100 million tonnes in 1990, 168 million tonnes in 2005, and 189 million tonnes in 2021. Now the government is telling the oil and gas sector that it will not have to worry for the next seven years. The government is giving it carte blanche, or should I say “carte noire”. The oil and gas sector can carry on polluting as much as it wants. There might be a target sometime around 2050, maybe. We will see. Sadly, this is consistent with the Liberals' vision and proposals since 2015.
We learned just this week that the government plans to subsidize oil companies to the tune of $12.5 billion for carbon capture technology. That is a page out of the Conservatives' playbook. The Minister of Environment, once an environmental activist, basically copied and pasted the Conservative Party leader's plan, a far-fetched fantasy in which a magic technological wand solves all our problems. This is public money paying for this, even though we know that carbon capture technology is not proven, has not been properly tested and is not producing the promised results.
We need to shift toward the centre and have a strong energy sector that focuses on renewable energy. That is what the science has been telling us for years, but the Conservatives and the Liberals are going in the completely opposite direction. That is not surprising from a government that bought the Trans Mountain pipeline, which has so little future that no private sector player wanted to buy it. It was also the Liberals who saw to it that everyone here, along with the people we represent in our ridings, is paying for it. At first they were talking about $7 billion. Then it was $12 billion, then $16 billion. Now we are at $30 billion for a pipeline that, in 20 or 30 years, will no longer be used, because it will transport the dirtiest oil in the world, the most expensive to extract, and no one will want it anymore.
It is not surprising that the Liberal government is also authorizing projects like Bay du Nord, which once again means an increase in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It is not surprising that the Liberals and the Minister of the Environment, in February, issued oil and gas exploration permits off the coast of Newfoundland for 12,000 square kilometres of delicate marine ecosystems. They also issued exploration permits to ExxonMobil and to British Petroleum.
This is the Liberals' record: a government incapable of meeting its targets, as we learned in the environment commissioner's latest report, a government that authorizes oil and gas projects and has just given Canadian oil companies a leg up to continue to do what they do while asking all citizens and companies in our economy to make an extra effort.
The situation is disastrous. Do we remember the forest fires last summer? Do we remember the consequences of increasing natural disasters, as we call them? These disasters are in fact less and less natural: The science and all the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC prove that they are becoming more frequent and intense, and have greater consequences on our economy, populations, and health.
There is a very interesting article today on Maria Neira, director of public health and the environment at the World Health Organization. She says that the air pollution that is causing respiratory problems and an increased incidence of asthma in young children is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. This is not a hypothesis. This is what is happening.
Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are being irresponsible and not taking measures to reduce the consequences of pollution and climate change on human life and health, but also on our economy and the future of our society and our communities.
People can count on the NDP. We will fight and take climate change seriously.
1406 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 12:16:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very good question.
Grocery bosses should not be the ones writing the code of conduct for the major grocery chains. The code should not be voluntary. It should not allow them to manage and discipline themselves. We need an independent body. That is important to the NDP.
A price on transportation-related pollution, for example, could certainly have an impact. However, food prices have risen faster than inflation for 24 months now. Corporate greed must have something to do with it. Corporations are lining their pockets and making record profits, and their executives are getting exorbitant paycheques.
We must not blame everything on the carbon tax. It does not even exist in some provinces, such as Quebec and British Columbia, where it literally has no impact.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 12:29:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Conservatives speak to the motion, and have have been listening to previous speeches, and the Conservative Party is spreading misinformation through social media and things of that nature. The member himself did it, to try to give the impression that the vast majority of constituents I represent would have more money in their pocket as a direct result of taking away the price on pollution. This is the “axe the tax” propaganda. He knows full well that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this is not the case.
Does the member not have any shame in trying to express to my constituents and Canadians that they are actually getting less money, when, in fact, when we factor in the rebates, they are getting more money in their pockets to allow them to buy more?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:06:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was reflecting, as I believe this is the 18th time we are debating a motion similar to this in this Parliament, back to the last election. In our debates, I said it was refreshing that all of the main parties at that time, in 2021, were running on a price on pollution, including all the members of the Conservative Party who sit here right now. We were actually talking about how we fight climate change.
Unfortunately, we are back to a time where one of the parties in the House is debating whether we should fight climate change at all. Its members can see it with their own eyes. They represent ridings that have had severe drought, flooding, fires and hurricanes. Their silence is deafening. The only plank of their environmental plan that comes through, as this is the 18th time we are debating this, is recycling slogans. There are no facts behind anything they are coming forward with.
They say that the price on pollution does not work. It is false: 30% of our reductions can be attributed to the price on pollution. That is 30% of our reductions; it is working.
An hon. member: That's not true.
Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, they are heckling me and saying it is not true. They will not stand up at any point and show any facts. They will yell, slam their desks and heckle.
The member for Provencher, who is heckling, represents a province that has suffered from the effects of climate with significant drought, and he is laughing. He thinks this is funny. He thinks his province going through severe drought is funny enough to laugh in the House of Commons. He will get up to talk about the price of food, but laugh when there are drought conditions on the Prairies.
What is driving that price? Conservatives are going to talk about the price on pollution, but the impact of food increases is happening the same in the United States, which does not have a price on pollution. They cannot explain that. They will not bring forward any facts on that issue.
They will not talk about the rebate Canadians get. They will not talk about how eight out of 10 families get more money back. They will not talk about the report out of the University of Calgary that shows 94% of individuals and families who make less than $50,000 a year end up with more.
They want to get rid of the price on pollution. What would that do? It would go straight back to their friends the oil companies. It would go straight back to companies I believe last year made $120 billion in profit, and they claim this trickle-down approach would come back to us somehow.
What it would mean is more stock buybacks and no spending on climate progress. It would not have any benefit to us Canadians across the board. Canadians who count on their climate action incentive would look to any government that cancels that and ask where the money is. They do not mention the rebate because they do not want to mention they would cut that rebate, which helps so many families across the board.
They want to take Canada out of international discussions. According to the World Bank, there are 73 carbon pricing initiatives currently in place or scheduled to be in place across the globe. These include in Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Chile, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Germany and of course Ukraine. We cannot forget about Ukraine, which the members on the other side want to make a splash about. They say that they cannot afford a free trade agreement with Ukraine because it mentions a price on pollution.
At the end of the day, they are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus. They are willing to throw it under the bus at a time when its president wants this free trade agreement. They talk about lowering the price of food, but they are voting against a country that is one of the breadbaskets of the world. Ukraine needs Canada's support, and this is what it has asked for.
The Conservative Party members are so ideological on pricing pollution, when a huge part of the world is behind this, yet they are going to take Canada back. They are going to take Canada back to the benefit of oil companies. They do not care about defending allies such as Ukraine, and they do not care about being a leader on climate.
I know that the member from Manitoba laughs that his province is under a drought, but what about the farmers in his community whose yields are down significantly? This is not because of a government policy, but because of the impacts of climate change. However, we do not hear that in any of their speeches.
The Conservatives, who do not want a price on pollution and claim that reducing pollution should be borne by industry, should be getting behind the government's latest announcement, which is an emissions reduction plan that would put a cap-and-trade system in place on the oil and gas sector to reduce 30% of emissions, but we are not going to hear that. We are not going to hear support for that plan because, fundamentally, I do not believe that they believe that climate change is real.
It is sad that we are back to a Conservative Party that does not believe in climate change. We have heard speech after speech in the House today, and I am not hearing individuals talk about the impacts in their community. However, they can see it with their own eyes. I remember debating a similar motion to this and the smoke was so bad in Ottawa that we could not see across the river in to Gatineau the impacts of climate change were so real.
Again, they are laughing. The hon. member from Saskatoon is making a joke. The forest fires in Quebec were so bad, but he stands here and makes a joke. The Conservatives are climate change deniers. This is a big joke to them. They do not care that grain yields are down on the Prairies. They do not care that forests the size of, I believe, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador burnt down this year, but that is a joke. First the member for Provencher laughed at the fact that there is drought in his province, and the member from Saskatoon laughs at climate change. It is a joke to them.
This is an existential crisis facing Canadians. However, Conservatives are now claiming that there is no drought on the Prairies. The grain yields are down across the prairies, I guess, by magic—
1138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:14:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that I am not telling the truth, but all we hear is them axing the facts, which is truly unfortunate. The Conservatives are not even going to say that there are drought conditions across the Prairies, which is fact.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, they are chirping. They are upset. They are angry, but the fact remains that this country has seen extreme weather time and time again, and that is what is impacting the price of food.
One of the previous members brought up a study warning Canadians that the price of food is going to increase. However, the member did not mention the second part, which was that climate change is the main driver of that. What do they do? They want to get rid of one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce pollution. It is a system that works and puts more money back into the pockets of Canadians.
Again, I call on the Conservatives to bring up some facts that support their arguments. Give us a better way to fight pollution. However, they are not going to. The only thing they have are slogans. I would like to see some facts. I would like to see a better way to fight pollution if they have it, but they do not. One Conservative member in committee said that environmentalists bring up all sorts of things, such as acid rain, but it went away.
Do members know why it went away? It is because a price on pollution was brought in.
An hon. member: Science.
Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. laughed again and said “Science”, but a price on pollution was brought in to limit pollution. It was brought in by a Conservative government under Brian Mulroney, by the way, who was a leader on that front. I hope that the Conservatives return back to even 2021, when they were talking about a price on pollution and climate change.
Climate change is real. We need to act. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives will laugh and deny it.
358 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:17:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, grain yields are down. Maybe they are doing great in the hon. member's riding, but he does not cite any facts. He cites his slogans, and that is unfortunate because Manitobans are impacted by the effects of climate change, which is driving up the price of food. That is the main driver of the price of food.
No one on the other side mentions that the price of food here is growing at the same price as it is in the United States, which does not have a price on pollution. Climate change is what is driving it. I do not know why the Conservatives are denying it or why they are sticking their heads in the sand. The hon. member ran on a price on pollution. Why is he denying it right now?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:19:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the NDP on the budget.
The thing I want to focus on is the cancellation of the price on pollution. It would disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable in our communities. As I mentioned in my speech, 94% of those making less than $50,000 a year get more back from a price on pollution. It is the Conservative Party that would disproportionately impact those hurting and struggling the most in our country.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:21:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this shows how unserious that party is. If every country that had lower emissions than China and the United States said they did not have a responsibility on climate change, there would be no action on it. Countries like Ukraine have stepped up, and they have very small carbon footprints. What did the Conservative Party do? It voted against Ukraine.
The price on pollution is important and we need to move forward on it. It works and it puts more money back into the pockets of Canadians.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:55:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is operating under good instruction from his whip's desk to keep calling out points of order on me. Congratulations to him.
However, in the document, “The True North Strong and Free”, Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians, there is actually reference to pricing pollution in here through the cap-and-trade model that Ontario, Quebec and a number of states in the United States adopted. That member ran in 2021 on Erin O'Toole's plan to price pollution—
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to when the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman stood up and I said, “Would you like me to bring up Ukraine?”, but I was not going to do that until the second half of my speech after question period. I will hold off and I will be judicious in my timing, but if the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman would like to hear that, I invite him to stick around after question period.
The reality is that all the Conservatives ran on pricing pollution. Each and every one of them ran on pricing pollution. Now, if they chose not to, then they should table for this House where in their campaign literature they were going against Mr. O'Toole. I wait with anticipation for that.
However, here is the reality of what Conservatives continually miss. It is the fact that many more people, eight out of 10 people, get back more than they pay in. According to Statistics Canada, 94%—
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 2:20:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a price on pollution is an important part of a climate plan, one that addresses affordability concerns. The vast majority of Canadians receive more money in the rebate than they pay in the price of pollution.
The only group to benefit from the Conservative plan to end the climate program and to end the rebate would be the top 20% of earners, while almost everyone else would be poorer as a result of their plan. The Conservatives are fighting for the rich; they are not fighting for Canadians who are concerned about affordability.
The carbon price is both a climate measure and an affordability measure.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 2:23:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 98% of farm fuel emissions are already not impacted by the price on pollution. Farmers, though, are on the front lines of climate change. They understand the critical importance of addressing the climate issue. There are many factors that are contributing to the rise of food prices in Canada and around the world, including the war in Ukraine.
While the Conservatives continue to vote against Ukraine and oppose the free trade agreement they need in their fight against Russia, we are taking action to reduce, to ensure affordability for Canadians and to support the government of Ukraine.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 2:52:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find the question coming form the hon. member very interesting given he was a member of the caucus of the B.C. Liberal government that put in place the carbon price in British Columbia.
His leader, the former premier, Gordon Campbell, said at the time that putting a price on carbon pollution was a way to reduce emissions, incent innovation and drive an economy going forward. He voted for that.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:23:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have 16 minutes left because, when I started at 10 minutes to two o'clock, I should have only had 10 minutes left, but Conservatives continued to rise on points of order during my speech. It veered into a place of actually trying to prohibit me from speaking. As you sit there and listen, if they attempt to engage in that same tactic again, perhaps you will have to call them into order. I would greatly appreciate your doing that.
Prior to question period, I was trying to explain to this House, and indeed Canadians, that there are way more people who get more back than they put into the carbon tax. That is a fact. What I was saying just before question period is that one of the persons who gets way more back than he puts in is the Leader of the Opposition. We have an individual here who has a government-paid house and a government-paid car. He literally pays none of the expenses that go into the carbon tax, but he gets that rebate. So my question is, in fairness, when we are having a discussion about the price on pollution and how much people are getting back, does the Leader of the Opposition cash his rebate every three or four months when he gets it? I would really like to know the answer to that question.
My guess is that he is like the vast majority of Canadians who check that box on page 1 when filing their income tax to receive the rebate on behalf of the family, and that he is receiving it directly deposited into his bank account. Meanwhile, he literally pays nothing into it, if we consider the fact that he has government-funded everything when it comes to expenses. However, I do not know that for a fact. I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to table his bank statements here so that we can properly see whether he is receiving that rebate. I am willing to put money on the fact that he or somebody in his family is receiving that rebate.
I am willing to put a lot of money on that because the reality is that, despite the fact that Conservative after Conservative get up to criticize the price on pollution, the carbon tax, they never once mention how much people get back. They do not want to be shown as being glaringly hypocritical. They certainly would be if people actually realized that while Conservatives go on, purporting to be in it for the low-income Canadians and people who are struggling, those are the exact people who actually end up with more than they put in. It is not me who is saying this. This is from our Parliamentary Budget Officer, who Conservatives like to quote so often.
According to Statistics Canada, and the data it has, when overlaid with this program, 94% of households with incomes below $50,000 receive rebates that exceed their carbon tax costs in 2023. Roughly half of households in this income category see a net gain between $20 and $40 per month, and about 4% see a net gain of $70 per month or more. As a matter of fact, 55% of those who are making at least $250,000 a year still receive more than they put in.
Will Conservatives say this? No, of course not. That does not feed properly into their narrative. Conservatives get up in this House and try to suggest they are in it for the folks in our country who are struggling while they completely neglect to tell them this and while they vote against a national food strategy for schools, which they did yesterday. Meanwhile, on the other side, they are trying to suggest that they are the only ones who can help people who are struggling. They are trying to deceive people into thinking that they have the solutions when we know that they do not have the solutions. That is the reality of it.
I get really concerned when I hear Conservative after Conservative come in here and talk about the price on pollution and how it is impacting people. They talk about farmers as well. Effectively, for 97% of farmers, it nets out to them not paying the carbon tax.
How can they get up in here time after time and continue to mislead Canadians in this regard? They do it relentlessly. They do it without any consideration for the fact that they are not even telling Canadians the reality of the situation. That is what we see and it is absolutely shameful.
I believe that it is because Conservatives have gone down this path of just thinking they can fool everybody and they can play off people's emotions and anxieties to the benefit of their political game—
815 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:29:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the reality of that member standing up in the House and accusing me of not telling the truth is absolutely ridiculous when one considers that this member will tell people they are paying a price on pollution and will tell people they are paying a carbon tax without bothering to tell them that, oh, by the way, if one makes less than $250,000, one is definitely getting more money back than one is putting in, and if one does make $250,000 or more, one is 55% more likely to get more than one puts in.
Will this member do that? No, of course he will not, because that would be being honest with Canadians. Just—
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
