SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Jun/13/24 2:25:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I noted in the discussion yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition had a newfound respect for economists. However, I will tell him that 300 economists, in addition to the PBO, say eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back. The way it works is directly inverse to income. The Leader of the Opposition ignores the costs of climate change. Here are the facts: His climate plan is to let the planet burn. It is to ignore the economic opportunities associated with the energy transition. Look, this is a fellow who ran in the last campaign on putting in place a carbon price. Who is telling the truth? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

116 words

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Jun/13/24 2:31:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in the House, it is great to see that the Conservative Party of Canada now actually believes that economists are thoughtful and give good advice. Three hundred of them signed a letter that told people eight out of 10 Canadian families do get more money back. I would encourage my hon. colleague to read that letter. Certainly, I would say that, as we move forward, we must have a plan to address climate change, and we must do so in a manner that is affordable. That is exactly what carbon pricing does. That is something we will continue to do, balancing the environment and the economy, versus a party that actually has no plan for the environment whatsoever.

124 words

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Jun/13/24 2:34:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House to actually go and talk to the PBO and the 300 economists who have said eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. They say it is those living on modest incomes who actually do the best. I would say the collective amnesia that actually exists on the other side of the House is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Every one of those members, including the member opposite who asked the question, campaigned on putting in place a price on pollution. It is hypocrisy.

100 words

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Jun/13/24 3:58:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the irony in that question is unbelievable, given the cuts that were made to our independent public servants under the Conservative government whenever they had opinions that did not suit the Conservative government. In fact, we have said time and time again that eight out of 10 Canadian families would be better off under our pricing of pollution. Over 300 economists have also confirmed that, but Conservatives do not want to be confused by the facts.

78 words

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/13/24 4:17:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a journalist from The Canadian Press published an article on March 26 about an open letter on the carbon tax signed by 165 Canadian economics professors. The letter states the following: As economists from across Canada, we are concerned about the significant threats from climate change. We encourage governments to use economically sensible policies to reduce emissions at a low cost, address Canadians’ affordability concerns, maintain business competitiveness, and support Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Canada’s carbon-pricing policies do all those things. In the article, the journalist says the following: According to the director of the department of economics at Université Laval, Stephen Gordon, economists are “almost unanimous” that carbon pricing is the best way to fight climate change. He then adds, citing the content of the letter, and look at how wonderful it is: “Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches”, according to the economists, who say “that is...common sense”. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

191 words

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Mr. Churence Rogers

Jun/13/24 5:04:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, the narrative from the Bloc and what we are debating in the House on a regular basis are always very different. We use the commentary from the PBO and other sources. As the minister alluded to today, we have over 300 economists across the country who support what we are doing with the climate change initiatives and carbon pricing.

62 words

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/13/24 5:34:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to pile on a bit like the member from the Liberal Party and the member from the Bloc have done. The member started by talking about the cost of food. Trevor Tombe from the University of Calgary was somebody we witnessed. I have read articles in the National Post, which I think we can all agree is hardly a left-wing socialist rag, that have said that actually the carbon tax does not impact the price of food to nearly the extent the member is saying. It is minuscule. In Alberta, the cost of groceries is out of control. In fact food insecurity in Alberta is at 20% higher than in the rest of the country, under the UCP government. I am wondering how the member keeps wanting us all to believe a fact-free zone, when economists, journalists and members of Parliament have made it very clear that the carbon tax is not what is responsible for the cost of food increasing so much. Corporate greed is responsible for that, and the Conservative Party voted against the NDP plan to stop corporate greed from taking more dollars from Canadians.

195 words

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Jun/13/24 5:45:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my colleague opposite understands math better than the Conservatives do. It is odd that the Conservatives are saying that doing away with the carbon tax, or rather the price on pollution, will put more money in Canadians' pockets when, on the contrary, many economists and experts of all kinds are saying that the carbon tax is putting more money in Canadians' pockets. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. I would also like him to tell us how doing away with the carbon tax would set back the fight against climate change.

104 words