44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 21, 2024 10:00AM
- May/21/24 2:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. friend to actually read the work that was done by 300 economists across this country, which says unequivocally that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back in the rebate than they actually pay in the price on pollution. That is addressing affordability. In fact, Premier Smith herself said she got more money back for her family than she paid.
If the member really is concerned about affordability, I would encourage him to talk to his friend Premier Smith. She just increased the gas price by 13¢; she did so with no rebate and did not account for affordability.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 2:44:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, and 300 economists across this country agree, that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back in the rebate. It is an approach that addresses affordability and does so in a manner that actually addresses climate change. I would encourage my hon. colleague across the way to talk to her Premier, who has said it is a price on pollution that actually gives her family more money back. She should go and have a conversation with Premier Smith, who just raised the price on gasoline by 13¢, with no rebate and no plan to address the climate crisis.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 2:45:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again I would encourage my hon. colleagues across the way to stop misleading people with respect to the price on pollution. They need to look at and read the letter that was written by 300 economists across this country, who say the carbon price is the most economically efficient way to address the climate in a manner that actually addresses affordability for Canadians.
I would encourage the Conservatives to go talk to their friend Premier Smith, who said exactly that. Her family got more money back than it actually paid in the price on pollution. I would encourage them, if they are concerned about the price of gas, to go talk to Premier Smith and ask her to reduce it by 13¢. That is how much she just raised it, with no rebate whatsoever.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 6:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the budget implementation act.
I was listening to the previous Conservative member. Unfortunately, we seem to be, and it is not surprising to anyone here, falling into the same pattern, which is just a verb the noun slogan after slogan, but not really saying anything.
It is shocking that the community of the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who spoke before me, experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in Canadian history a couple of years ago, with significant damage to his community. It is still struggling to deal with it years later, and the only answer he has is to make pollution free again. It is the only answer Conservatives have on that side. I have said before that the only plank in the Conservative environmental agenda is recycled slogans. However, this is a real crisis. To have that member see his own community go through what it went through and to still come here and repeat an empty slogan that he knows will not have any impact, it just speaks to the modern Conservative movement. There is no seriousness on climate change, no seriousness on getting homes built and no seriousness on building our economy. It is just verb the noun. That is all Conservatives have. They can say it over and over again, but they do not have a plan.
I was at an announcement last week in Niagara. It was a great announcement from governments that have a plan and that invest in workers and in their communities. It was based on a partnership with Honda and the major Honda announcement that happened in Alliston. Asahi Kasei, a Japanese company that produces battery separators, announced it is going to invest $1.6 billion in developing a factory in Niagara, which will be transformational. It was great to see the Premier of Ontario there, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Innovation. These are governments that are looking to invest in Canadians, in the future and in the economy of the future.
Conservatives, again, verb the noun, have no plan for any of this because of items like putting a price on pollution. It is about investing in critical minerals so that Canada is poised to be a leader in EV manufacturing and the jobs of the future. Conservatives will stick their heads in the sand and say that it is the same old thing, that they do not need to do anything and that they will make it free to pollute. They are not going to get the results. From the investments in Honda, we are going to see thousands of manufacturing jobs in Ontario.
It was unfortunate that when the previous Conservative government was around we saw thousands of manufacturing jobs leave Ontario, one after the other. We could go through a tour of factories in the Niagara region that closed under that government's watch, and it did not care. It did not have a plan for the future. Here we have an opportunity to be a leader in the EV space, enough that a Conservative premier and government in the Province of Ontario know it is important and step up to invest in workers. The Conservative leader would tell us that he would not invest in these types of factories we have seen in Niagara, in the London area, in Windsor and in Alliston.
We are creating an infrastructure, and international companies, some of the largest in the world, are eager to invest. That shows actual work on the ground to get things done, to plan for economic growth and for the economy of the future. There is a change happening. Again, we can stick our heads in the sand, and I know Conservatives like to do that frequently, but these changes are happening, and we need to be at the forefront of that.
Also, I am happy to report that, last week, a controversial housing development in the city of St. Catharines, the municipality I represent, which may not seem large to certain members from the GTA as it is a 500-unit development, was approved. It is good news, seeing more and more housing approved and the mayor and city council taking the charge on housing. I had the opportunity to speak with one of the owners of the property after the development was approved. She told me that the federal government's investments are going to ensure that approximately half of the units being built would be rental units.
We have seen across the country, especially in southern Ontario, the very low vacancy rates that exist and the acknowledgement that we need more rentals. It was a big step to remove the GST from purpose-built rentals. The changing of the capital cost allowance, from approximately 4% of mortgage costs to 10%, is making the math work, and that is what we have heard from developers. We have heard that, with interest rates, labour costs and other items, it is becoming a challenge to get those shovels in the ground. We can all agree, I hope, on all sides of the House that we need to see more rental housing built, and this is just one item. We are seeing announcements like that across the country.
We are seeing partnerships with municipalities that have bold plans to build more housing. Again, not to boast, but the City of St. Catharines was a recipient of the housing accelerator fund because it does have a bold plan for housing. I am happy to see that the current budget would top up the housing accelerator fund, so we would see more municipalities join the list, eliminate red tape when it comes to permitting, and increase the density of lots. Four units as a right is something that we want to see and something that would get more housing built.
The house that I currently live in is on the plot of what was an old farmhouse on a very large lot. Development had happened all around it decades before, and the house was taken down and four units of housing were built, a couple of semi-detached homes. Now, there are four families living on this property rather than one. Changes through the housing accelerator fund will make that easier. We will make it so that we can speed up the process and get construction started quicker.
There is no magic bullet for solving the housing crisis, but I think we can solve the housing crisis. Canadians have solved it before, and we can do it again. We estimate it will take about 3.87 million homes being built, but it is something that we can do. It is something that can be done, whether we use new ways of building houses or old ways.
If we look back to what we did after the Second World War, there was a housing catalogue. Someone could just pick a house, and it could get built and speed up those processes. We can do that. We can ensure that there is a housing catalogue. The developers can just pick the house, or a family can pick the house they want, get it built and not go through the process of getting that permit approved, which speeds up the construction of that house.
That is an old idea, but it can work in a modern setting, especially with larger density projects. We can use new materials. We can use factory-built housing. We can encourage that. Also exciting, and it may not be the most fun announcement in terms of housing-related infrastructure, is that something the budget is keenly about, and something that we need to be part of, is ensuring that water and waste water are there to make sure that the housing gets built.
The Conservatives, as I was starting to talk about, talk about the slogan. They are against all of these actual proposals to get housing built. It is unfortunate to see that their actions do not match their slogans.
1355 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 7:00:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about his environmental concerns, which I share, and the fact that the Conservatives refuse to have a price on pollution; that is not a plan to help us or help our communities.
However, at the same time, his government is spending $34 billion to buy a pipeline that will triple the production of the dirtiest oil in the world. Is that not contradictory?
He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 7:59:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that air pollution has been on the rise for several years now. Increased air pollution leads to an increase in health problems, particularly lung problems and, by extension, heart problems and other conditions. This leads to higher health care costs, which are also linked to age, but also to the problems that arise from increased pollution.
Despite all this, Canada is not responding to the demands of Quebec and the Canadian provinces when it comes to health transfers. What is more, Canada is adding more funding and tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. Would my colleague say that Canada is a little backward in the way it thinks about its budget and the population's actual needs?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 8:00:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. It is more than just ironic. It is unbelievable that the government continues to give subsidies to fossil fuel industries despite all the promises to cancel subsidies and government support.
For example, $34 billion has been invested in building the Trans Mountain pipeline. This flies in the face of our efforts to protect our climate and, as the member said, it flies in the face of public health interests and the need to protect the public from pollution. We can do more, and we can make better and wiser decisions, but not with this bill.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 12:24:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain again to the hon. member that putting a price on pollution is at the centre of the government's plan to fight climate change and curb its devastating effects on our communities and economy.
The negative impacts of climate change are very real. The public will not soon forget the destructive force of last year's forest fires that scorched much of Canada and choked our communities, which were cloaked in thick smoke. It would be irresponsible of us to stand idly by.
We are proposing solutions to deal with our rapidly changing climate. Standing still is unacceptable. We must act. Our efforts are not just to benefit our generation; they are to benefit future generations of Canadians, our children and their children.
Our government is taking the necessary steps that will have effective, concrete impacts, and a vital part of the plan is Canada's price on pollution. Without a doubt, pollution has a cost. Applying a price on carbon pollution is widely recognized as one of the most efficient ways to reduce emissions.
What is more, this way of proceeding means that the price on pollution remains affordable to Canadians. We sometimes hear, particularly in the House, that putting a price on pollution costs Canadians too much. I can assure members that this statement is completely false. In fact, in the provinces where the federal pollution pricing applies, people get back a large part of the revenues generated, and low-income earners benefit the most.
This means our system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families, while encouraging choices that will help Canada lower its emissions. Our price on pollution ensures that eight out of 10 households in these provinces are receiving more money back through quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay. Thanks to our government's pollution pricing mechanism, a family of four living in one of these provinces can receive up to $1,800 in 2024-25. As members can see with our plan, we are not only fighting climate change, but we are also returning money to Canadians.
The government does not keep any direct proceeds from federal pollution pricing. Instead, the government returns the money collected to households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. International experts agree that our pollution pricing mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change.
With this approach, we are sending a clear message that pollution has a price, and as we know, it absolutely does. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages reduction across the economy, while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. Removing pollution pricing, as the Conservatives have called for, would eliminate its powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to pollute less. Removing pollution pricing, as the Conservatives have called for, would only confirm that they do not want to fight climate change and they do not have a plan.
504 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 12:29:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is the member calling into question the opinion of over 300 experts in Canada who have clearly demonstrated that pollution pricing is the right way to go? What we are doing is protecting people from the dangers and costs of climate change and ensuring that Canada continues to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Not only does our price on pollution help combat climate change, but it is also giving more money back directly to Canadian families at a time when so many need it the most.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
