Debates of Feb. 1st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, it does have a price on pollution.

[An hon. member]

At 80¢ a tonne?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is the problem.

Maybe there are those in the Conservative Party who do not really look at the notes provided to them by their party. When they do some independent research, they will find that a lot of the stuff they are given is misinformation. However, they purport it to be true.

Let us look at Ukraine. The Conservative Party today, for the first time, is going to be voting against a trade agreement on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is that? Even the New Democrats are voting in favour of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I believe the Green Party and the Bloc Party are also doing so. It is only the Conservative Party.

They come up with this red herring that they are voting against it because it has the words “carbon tax”, or it is dealing with a price on pollution, and they do not want that in a trade agreement. Well, duh. Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Can we imagine this? The President of Ukraine came to Canada, at a time of war in Europe, to sign off on an agreement that is beneficial to Ukraine, Canada and, ultimately, many others, and the Conservatives have chosen to vote against it. It brings us back to the question of why. I believe the price on pollution is a bit of a red herring for them on this, and it has a lot more to do with their current leader wanting to imitate Donald Trump. The Conservative leader and his MAGA politics are very real. As we get closer to an election, Canadians are going to become much more aware of the Conservative agenda, even the hidden aspects of it.

We recognize the importance of trade. Earlier, when making comments, a Conservative member talked about how foreign investment is down. How can Conservatives justify giving false information on foreign investment? If we look at last year, with respect to dollars of investment on a per capita basis, no other country in the world received more foreign investment than Canada did. However, Conservatives go around giving a false impression and have no problem doing it.

I can provide proof of the comments I have made on the record in the last 19 or so minutes, but Conservative members will still stand up and say the absolute opposite. For me, it creates a number of ethical issues that I will not necessarily get to talk about.

What blew my mind earlier today in question period was when the Minister of Housing said that Jenni Byrne, who is the campaign manager and former girlfriend of the Leader of the Conservative Party, is now an active lobbyist for Loblaws. I hope Conservatives will ask me a question on that. I would be happy to expand on the bizarreness of that issue.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for taking away 20 minutes of my life, which I will never get back.

I often laugh at this comical narrative the Liberals are trying to build of comparing the Conservative Party to Donald Trump because it wants to stand up for working families across this country by making life less expensive for them.

I see my good friend from Saint John—Rothesay, whom I deem a reasonable and practical Canadian.

I recall in 2015, when the Liberals talked about taxes, debt and deficit. Because of these comparisons, I often hear from people that this is not the party of Chrétien-Martin, but a radical, ideological, leftist cult led by a two-bit actor, who memorizes lines given to him by much smarter socialists.

What happened to the Liberal Party of Chrétien-Martin?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is a political party that has not abandoned its heritage. It has built additional supports in health care, supported Canada's middle class by providing tax breaks and supported seniors by dramatically increasing the guaranteed income supplement. It has invested more in housing than any other political party in the last 60-plus years. It has driven an economy that has generated close to 2.5 million additional jobs since 2015, and it has built Canada's infrastructure. The list goes on. It is a proud Liberal heritage.

However, there is a lot more work to do. I believe that the more Canadians get to know the member's leader, the more people will be coming back and wanting to see us continue on.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Barrie—Innisfil got up and said it was one of the worst 20 minutes of his life, yet on every Conservative opposition day, debates drag on for so long that they feel like several lifetimes.

That said, we are in a parliamentary setting. Words matter. Tone matters. We have to be careful about our comparisons. The parliamentary secretary said that the leader of the official opposition was behaving like Donald Trump. That is wrong. I think that Mr. Trump could learn a lot from the Conservative leader's methods.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what Mr. Trump could learn from the Conservative leader's methods.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat convinced that there have to be some ties there. We had a commercial go out that compared the type of language being used by the MAGA far right in the United States, and it is actually quite surprising how much the current leader of the Conservative Party has adopted that. For example, the way he talks about Ukraine as being a faraway land, the way he talks about budget-related matters and so forth. It is a great comparison, and I wish I could flash the link on the screen. It is a wonderful comparison between Donald Trump and the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. I would encourage people to watch it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier in the debate, the Conservatives raised the issue of the GST and HST, which is something they created through Brian Mulroney and then Stephen Harper. Then they dished it off by saying that we cannot go back 15 years or 20 years, but every bill we pay still has the GST and HST on it. In fact, the history of this country is bringing in the GST with the Conservatives and the Liberals to actually reduce corporate taxes for the oil and gas industries, the telcos and the pharmaceutical companies and shift that tax burden to the general public, the consumers, with prices at the pump, at the grocery store and other places. The reality is that we have actually reduced the GST at certain points in time and taken it off feminine products and other things.

In the Liberals' past behaviours and practices, they so-called fought among themselves with cutting the corporate taxes a lot faster and deeper. Will they amend these behaviours, reduce the GST and the HST, take the burden off consumers and put it where it belongs, on the richest corporations that abuse Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are different ways in which we can support Canada's working class, especially at the low end, through the credit system.

We see basic income increases and even cuts, as I pointed out earlier, to the middle class. We have seen dramatic increases to supports for children through the Canada child program and, more recently, the enactment of a child care program that will see $10-a-day day care. I believe most provinces are now providing that. We are talking about literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. The dental program has been helping children and will be helping seniors this year. We continue to work at expanding that.

There are all sorts of investments a progressive government can actually make, and that we have made, in order to ensure that there is higher equity among the population. That includes, by the way, getting tougher on—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member can maybe add to his next answer.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's focus on the question of what former Progressive Conservative prime ministers and leaders have said about the current state of the Conservative Party. They are obviously two very different parties.

My focus is on lamenting that only in Canada, and now in the United States, do we have a division over how to respond to the climate crisis that falls along left-right lines in politics. That is really a shame, and it is not necessary.

If we look back, who were the leaders in addressing the climate crisis in the 1980s? There was Margaret Thatcher. No one would suggest she was a leftist. The Iron Lady was pretty darn right wing, but she was trained in science and chemistry. She set up the Hadley Centre in England to take on climate change and be serious about it.

Brian Mulroney was an early leader on climate change globally. He still calls on his successors, in what still calls itself a Conservative Party, to do the right thing and address the climate crisis.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and that is why I spent time emphasizing what Progressive Conservative leaders have talked about when reflecting on today's Conservative Party. We are starting to see more distance. A lot of Progressive Conservatives are disappointed because, at the end of the day, they have completely disregarded that aspect of the Progressive Conservatives' heritage.

I think that is not healthy. We should see all political parties of all stripes looking at science and doing things to improve our climate. Sadly, we have real Conservatives today who still deny that climate change is happening.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech today; it was very enlightening.

We know this for a fact: The party opposite ran on pricing pollution. Whether its members want to admit that is totally up to them; it was in their platform, and we all know it. We also know that the official opposition's job is to challenge our government, to hold our feet to the fire and so on; however, its job is also to offer solutions and alternatives.

Have the members of the party opposite ever offered a solution to pricing pollution? We know our climate is warming. Have they ever offered a solution, or are they just going to let it rip?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that we have seen absolutely no indication whatsoever, in a tangible way, from the official opposition party as to what its environmental policy actually is. That is very discouraging. Many say it is because of the element made up of complete climate deniers, who just do not see it as a priority at all. Therefore, they continue to want to deceive Canadians on the price on pollution.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Natural Resources.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I begin I would like to recognize that I will be splitting my time with someone I think is one of the greatest MPs in the House of Commons, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I want to do some carbon tax math to begin. This is carbon tax 101. I would actually suggest that the members opposite grab their calculators, follow along with me and do this math. Two years ago we had the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, at the finance committee. I asked him how much the carbon tax is responsible for inflation. He said 0.5%. He came back in a subsequent meeting two years later and said it is actually 0.6%, and he had underestimated a bit. We got that. We are clear on that. This is from the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not think he is going to make up these numbers.

Then, he was actually at the finance committee today, and I asked him about the increase on April 1. I said it would probably be 0.1%, and he said I had once again underestimated and it would actually be 0.15%, so that gives us 0.75%. We can put this in our calculator if we want. Currently, the inflation rate is 3.4%. If we divide 0.75 by 3.4, that gives us a percentage. My 10-year-old is learning that in school right now. That gives us 22%. I am sorry. I actually underestimated, and I apologize to the House. I said it was 20%. I underestimated again, as I did with the governor as well. It is 22%. We could bring down inflation by 22% today if we eliminated the carbon tax, and that would almost bring us in range.

Of course, the Bank of Canada has a range of inflation that it is trying to get to. It is trying to get to 2%. We would almost be there if we took just one action and eliminated the carbon tax. That is carbon tax math. Once again, it is 0.75 divided by 3.4. My 10-year-old is learning this—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be some members trying to ask questions. I would ask them to wait until the appropriate time to do that.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has the floor.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that, and I apologize. I get passionate as well.

However, the reality is that the rebate is taken into consideration. The Governor of the Bank of Canada looked at the entire picture, including the rebate, and said that if we eliminated the carbon tax today, we would reduce inflation by 22%.

We have had some fun about the math and stuff like that, but that has real impacts. I am sure members in their ridings have heard from people, because I certainly have heard, in mine, from the ones who are about to lose their homes. Why? It is because interest rates are high, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada must do the work that the government is unwilling to do.

The government is blindly pushing people into losing their houses and losing their jobs, as well as sending two million people to food banks. They laugh at this, but it is math. It is 22%. All they would have to do is eliminate that carbon tax. If they believe in that carbon tax like they say they do, let us have a carbon tax election, and let us do it today, because I know who will win that election.

Then we will hear them cast aspersions like, “They're climate deniers, they're this, they're that.” The reality is that the carbon tax has failed. If anyone is a climate change denier, they are on that side of the aisle. The Liberals are failing to achieve their climate targets. Their own climate change commissioner said that they will not achieve their 2030 targets. They have yet to achieve one single target, so if we want to talk about climate change denial, it is on that side of the aisle.

Let us talk a bit about the economy and why it is so important to get a new direction.

The member from the other side said that there has been a recent uptake in investments, which is true. I am glad for that, but let us look at the overall picture. Since 2014, we have had some of the weakest foreign investment in the world, and we are forecasted by the IMF to actually have the worst foreign investment over the next 40 years. Our GDP per capita over the last 10 years is 4%, which is the total growth for GDP per capita. Do we know what it is in the United States? It is 47%, or 10 times ours.

GDP per capita, by the way, is not just any number. GDP per capita is the number one way of measuring the economic impact on the individual. The reality is that the split has not been even. Who has been hurt the most? It is the most vulnerable; those who are in an economically weak position are hurting. That is why there are two million people going to the food banks.

I hope everyone understands the carbon tax math. Hopefully, over there, they will understand this too. GDP per capita is the economic measure of the welfare of the individual in a given state. In the U.S., in the last 10 years, it has grown by 47%. In Canada, it has grown by 4%, which is 0.8% per year. We need change, and we need it fast.

Underpinning that weak per capita GDP number is a lack of productivity. I will be candid: Our weak productivity numbers date back decades, but it has taken on an exponential weakness in the last decade. Our productivity numbers put us near the bottom of the OECD. Quite frankly, I do not mean to be an alarmist, but it is just the reality: On the trajectory that we are on with our productivity numbers, we will not even be an advanced economy in the next 20 years. It is wild.

If we look at the GDP per hour, which is a measurement of how much a worker in Canada contributes, in the U.S. it is $75, in Switzerland it is around $95, and Canada it is $55. Why do we look at this? Productivity has three pillars that underpin it. One is capital investment, and as I said, over the last 10 years we are among the weakest in the OECD. The second is our workforce. We actually have a really strong and great workforce and the best workers, I believe, in Canada.

The other part of it is innovation, and that is where we are falling down. We have great minds here who produce great ideas, but we are not making it intellectual property. What is happening is that many of the best minds are going to Silicon Valley or other places in the world, and we need to make sure that Canadians feel comfortable and that they win.

There is one area where our productivity is among the highest in the world. I said that Canada's GDP is, on average, $55 per hour. In the energy sector, it is $500 per hour. What is the government doing in that sector, one of the few bright lights of our otherwise dim economy? It is crushing it. It is trying to kill the energy sector in Canada. Members over there will say that we have to, for the sake of the planet. In reality, we are shutting down Canadian energy and it is just going to other parts of the world. Instead of having manufacturing in great places like Cobourg, Port Hope or Hamilton in Ontario, or in many of the great towns and cities out west, it is being transported across the world.

The reality is that it could be powered by hydroelectric power in Winnipeg, Quebec or Niagara Falls, or by clean, emission-free nuclear power in parts of Ontario, or we could ship those jobs, as is going on right now, to Guangdong province, where it is powered by coal. The carbon tax plays into and affects this, because it is pushing jobs there.

The reality is there is no carbon tax in West Virginia; there is no carbon tax in Guangdong province, and there is a very small carbon tax in Mexico. As we increase costs here, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are making emissions in the world higher, because, to a certain extent, it matters what Canada's emissions are only in terms of how we are affecting global emissions. Pollution knows no borders. Our focus really has to be on how we reduce global emissions.

What is happening now and what has happened over the last 10 years is that we have made the cost of doing business so difficult in Canada, not least through the carbon tax, that we are pushing manufacturing and natural gas exploration outside of our borders. We actually increase emissions while at the same time decreasing our economic welfare. This is not a recipe for success.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving us this pseudolesson on economics.

It is confusing to me that he does not understand basic economic terminology such as “taxation”, since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the carbon pricing system is not a concept of taxation and is understood in a constitutional context. What Conservatives really want us to do is axe the facts.

I understand that “axing a regulatory charge and the climate action incentive payment” is not a good bumper sticker slogan. What Conservatives want to do is distract Canadians from what is really happening, ignore the facts and ignore science while our country burns. I would like to hear a comment about that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the government takes money and no one has the ability to say no, it is a tax. That is just the reality. I do not care what the Supreme Court says on that. If the government wants to take money, but people do not pay it and they go to jail, that is a tax. It is simple.

I went through the math. The Liberal-appointed Governor of the Bank of Canada, not some Conservative, said that even with the rebate it is 22% of inflation. I dare you to go back to your constituents and say you are going to increase inflation today by 20%, because that is what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, just like on any other Conservative opposition day, we are still talking about the carbon tax. People watching the debates might wonder if what MPs do all day amounts to anything. I will let them in on a secret: We sometimes wonder the same thing.

I have enjoyed working with my colleague on bills. I know him to be an extremely intelligent and friendly guy. I will give him a chance to prove it by asking him a question on a different topic that is nonetheless related to the one at hand.

I know that he is passionate about agriculture. What does he think about the federal budgets for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada? Does he think they are adequate? I think they need to be increased significantly.

The most important thing is research and development. Does it receive enough support in Canada and Quebec? Is the federal government making its fair share of the efforts? I do not think so. For everyone in the House, research and development is the future. That is how we are going to adapt to climate change, which is already here, to be able to be productive while polluting less.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated working with the member. I would say that I take a bit of offence to some of the member's comments. My presentation was full of numbers and data. I was not just meandering about, with whatever insult I felt about the Conservative Party. I had statistics and am happy to share them with the member.

Winston Churchill once said that taxing oneself into prosperity is like a man standing in his bucket and trying to pull it up. It is impossible. Yes, we can talk about funding arrangements and support for farmers; that is all well and good, but the first thing we need to do is get off their back.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry; I do not recall to whom to attribute this, but I have also heard it said that taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. I often think that to the Conservatives, taxes are a bad thing, but taxes are the monies we collect and pay people to provide police services, schools, roads, ports, highways, community centres, arenas, auditoriums and other things that provide the ability for people to live their lives and connect in culture.

My question, though, is about the climate crisis. I hear a lot of criticism of the carbon tax. There are many economists who have said that the price of not dealing with the climate crisis is in the multiple billions of dollars. What is the Conservative plan to deal with the climate crisis? If we were to get rid of the carbon tax, what would the Conservatives do to help protect the planet for future generations, or do they not think that the climate crisis is real or needs to be dealt with?