Debates of Sept. 27th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us start with nuclear technology, zero emission nuclear technology, which can supply electricity to Canadians from coast to coast.

Second, we can expand carbon capture and storage, another thing that the NDP is against.

Third, we should be mining lithium, cobalt, nickel and other minerals necessary for electrification, but do it right here in Canada. Of course, the NDP is against that. It is against mining lithium, cobalt and nickel in Canada. The NDP would rather we import it from coal-burning economies on the other side of the planet that fund foreign dictatorships.

I want those jobs to be here for our people. The member wants higher taxes on the working-class constituents he is supposed to be representing.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, our leader just finished a whirlwind tour. He did 80 town halls across Canada and spoke with 93,000 Canadians.

Can our hon. colleague tell us some of the stories that he heard first-hand from Canadians about how the Liberals' mismanagement and monetary policies are hurting hard-working Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for inviting me to Prince George, British Columbia.

I met people across this country who told me incredible stories. Some are getting by, most are falling behind, and there are people in this country who are just hanging on by a thread. Working-class men are taping up their boots because they cannot afford new ones. A miner in northern Ontario could not afford to diesel up his truck to drive to see his dying parents in Thunder Bay one last time. There are countless stories of this kind right across this country.

These people need hope. Conservatives will transform their hurt into the nation's hope, and we will give them back control of their lives.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax, widely regarded by leading economists as the most efficient way to act on the climate crisis, went up by 2.2¢ per litre this past year. Meanwhile, oil and gas wholesale margins, in other words, profits, went up by over 18¢. Therefore, the increased cost at the pumps is nine times higher due to price gouging by the oil and gas industry, rather than carbon pricing. As a result, in just one example, Imperial Oil recently posted a $2.4-billion profit, a sixfold increase compared to the same three-month period last year.

Why are the Leader of the Opposition and his party not similarly outraged by this?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find the question ironic coming from the Green Party, which, along with the Liberals and NDP, has as its stated purpose higher gas prices. The Green Party wants higher gas prices and it simultaneously complains about those prices. That is the obvious contradiction. The irony is that the member is not against oil company profits. He just thinks it should be foreign oil companies that are making those profits.

We believe in turning dollars for dictators into paycheques for our people by bringing back production here to Canada and then having the highest possible environmental standards so that the production in this country is green and clean for real.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I would really encourage the opposition leader to reach out to one of his own members, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, to talk about the incredible work that is going on, the multi-billion dollar plant for producing electric batteries for vehicles, which will be established in her riding right next door to me, if the member is so concerned about importing products and resources for those batteries.

I will go back to the question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. She asked the member about his position on cryptocurrency and he did not answer. Can he even just get up and say the word “cryptocurrency” and sit down? Is it even in his vocabulary anymore?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talks about electrification facilities in his neighbouring riding. The point I made at the outset is that we need to mine the minerals that go into those vehicles in the first place. That cannot happen if we impose seven- to 10-year delays on the approval of those projects in the first place. The reason countries like Chile, China and others are mining and manufacturing these minerals into a ready state in which they can go into batteries and other electrification is that they have faster approvals.

We can protect our environment and go through all the same steps to ensure a pristine future for our kids, but it should not take seven to 10 years to do it. We can do it quickly, and then we can have the cleanest and greenest production on planet earth.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg South.

Here we are on the first opposition day. As many commentators and Canadians have noted, the new Conservative leader has no plan to fight climate change and no plan to make life more affordable for Canadians.

He did not mention the climate crisis once during the leadership race, nor did he have any concrete proposals to support people in need. Contrary to what the opposition leader's highly misleading motion suggests, our tax credit for climate action puts more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families.

We know there are people, members opposite, who are trying to block and delay the government from mitigating the impact of inflation on Canadians. The new Leader of the Opposition said just last week that the new proposed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I ask members to please keep conversations in the back and not in the chamber.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may continue.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

The new Leader of the Opposition said just last week that the proposed investments in our affordability plan, which would double the GST tax credit, get dental care for those who cannot afford it and provide direct payments to Canadians having trouble paying the rent, were all akin to printing cash. I guess that was before members of his own party flip-flopped on their position and finally, albeit reluctantly, decided to support our proposed GST tax rebate, which will support 11 million Canadians.

Let us be absolutely clear. The suite of measures in our affordability plan will support Canadians with the rising cost of living without adding fuel to the fire of inflation. Members do not need to take my word for it. The former deputy parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Askari, the University of Calgary's Lindsay Tedds and Alberta economist Trevor Tombe have all pointed out that this support we have proposed to this House will not have an inflationary effect. Why not? It is because it is specific and targeted.

Our plan offers targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the people who need it most, with particular emphasis on lower-income Canadians, who are most exposed to inflation. Obviously, our ability to spend is limited. That was true when interest rates were at a historic low in 2020, and it is certainly true today.

That is why we continue to act with prudence. Today, we have the lowest net debt and the lowest deficit in the G7. We still have a AAA credit rating. Our goal is to balance fiscal responsibility with the government's responsibility to come to the aid of the most vulnerable Canadians. That has always been our approach.

Thanks to the investments our government has made over the past two years, many of the measures in our affordability plan are already in place to help Canadians.

I would be more than happy to spend the time I have remaining going through the details of our affordability plan and how we will support Canadians through this challenging economic time. However, that is not really what the Conservatives would like to speak about. The Conservative motion, in fact, does not even mention affordability, not once. No, this is a motion against climate action, pure and simple, less than 48 hours after hurricane Fiona touched down in Atlantic Canada.

What the motion from the Leader of the Opposition essentially says is that now is the time to give up in the fight against the climate crisis, although, to be fair, it is not as if my colleagues opposite ever really started. They are still too busy arguing among themselves as to whether climate change is even real.

Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; it is an economic necessity. All around the world, governments are investing in a green transition. Our most important trading partners, the United States and the European Union, are all putting serious climate measures into action now.

These are our clients. These are our markets. Without the innovation born out of and encouraged by a robust price on pollution, Canada has no future in the new global economy. Importantly, Canada’s national price on pollution does not make life any less affordable for the vast majority of Canadians. It is unfortunate the Conservative Party continues to spin this false narrative about Canada’s price on pollution while having actually no plan for themselves to tackle climate change.

Once again, the Conservatives are taking aim at the price on pollution. That is not surprising, coming from a party that is still torn over whether climate change is real. Our government sees what is happening, and we are taking action.

Clearly, if the Conservatives were in power, there would be no targets and no talk of achieving net zero. Rather, they would be talking about the oil-based economy and ignoring our vulnerable seniors, low-income workers and struggling families. The Conservatives believe that the federal government should not do anything to tackle the climate crisis or to help Canadians face economic challenges.

Despite our Conservative colleagues' indifference, our government is focusing on making life more affordable for Canadians by urgently investing in a just green transition.

Canadians understand that we must act to stem the climate emergency and reduce our emissions. It is an environmental and economic imperative, and yet the Conservatives continue to attack a policy that is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and drive innovation at the same time.

In fact, last Thursday, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes described the federal price on pollution as “some kind of weird Ponzi scheme the government has cooked up.”

For the benefit of my Conservative colleague, I do want to remind the House of the definition of a Ponzi scheme, which is “a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return which generates returns for earlier investors with money taken from later investors.”

Putting to one side, for the purposes of this debate, the fact that accusing the government of engaging in fraudulent activities is certainly stretching the boundaries of parliamentary language, that the Conservatives believe that putting a price on pollution is a fraudulent scam is incredibly uninformed and also very telling.

The Conservatives have consistently shirked away from the fight against climate change and this first opposition motion from their new leader shows us that we should just expect more of the same.

Interestingly, though, this motion does not call for an end to the price on pollution, or carbon tax, if members prefer to call it that. The Conservatives now appear to want to keep the carbon tax in place, just not to have it increase.

To be clear, because we have heard a lot of numbers this morning, this price on pollution is going up by 3¢ in April, not tomorrow, not this year but next year.

In fact, this first opposition motion is an attempt to change the channel. It is an attempt to change the channel away from the responsible and the needed affordability plan that we have presented. It is a way to change the channel from the legislation before the House that will provide a tax rebate to Canadians.

The Conservatives are busy lining up speakers on debate. The Conservatives are busy trying to block the passage of our affordability plan, which will put money back into the pockets of Canadians now, not in six months from now, not next year. The affordability plan that we have put forward will put money back into pockets of Canadians now and the Conservatives are blocking it.

As the Conservatives come to grips with the debate and the reality of the climate crisis, our government is committed to and focused on supporting Canadians feeling the effects of global inflation. That is our priority.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do feel I need to correct the record, because there are many errors in the speech of the parliamentary secretary

The first is the claim that the Conservatives do not have any targets for climate change and emissions reduction. In fact, the Liberals' targets are Stephen Harper's 2030 targets, so that is not the case.

The member said that we did not have a plan. Our leader outlined technologies such as nuclear, carbon sequestration and carbon capture, and leveraging LNG to other places in the world that would help reduce the footprint by a factor of 10.

Why does the Liberal government keep telling Canadians things that are simply not the case, such as they were only going to pay $50 a tonne for carbon tax or they were going to get more money back than they invested? Why does the Liberal government continue to do that?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it laughable for the member opposite to suggest that the Conservative Party has a concrete plan to fight the climate crisis. She referenced Stephen Harper's government. Under Stephen Harper, our emissions ran wild.

We have put in place a robust and very ambitious target to get to net zero, and we are committed to getting there.

We hope that the Conservatives will not stand in the way.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was amazed to hear my colleague say that the Liberals' plan for fighting climate change is recognized. Recognized by whom, I wonder? Each year, they pour $14 billion into direct and indirect investments in fossil fuels. They bought a pipeline. The Bay du Nord project will produce one billion barrels over 30 years. They set targets at 40% or 45% when Canada has never reached a single one of its greenhouse gas reduction targets. I wonder who in the world is recognizing Canada as a leader in the fight against climate change.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the experts I named in my speech all said that our plan to put a price on pollution was the best way of dealing with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

With respect to our goal of achieving net zero, it is certainly a very ambitious goal, and we are proud of it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, although the Conservatives are having trouble even accepting the fact that we are in a climate emergency, the Liberal government has not done much better. Instead of investing in a green future, it is spending that money and investing it in fossil fuel subsidies, to which the NDP has called for an end.

We know that oil companies right now are gouging Canadians. They are taking advantage of Canadians at a time of crisis. In fact, Canadians for Tax Fairness said:

External pressures, such as the Russian war on Ukraine, are driving up energy costs. However, oil and gas companies are not just passing along those costs. They are taking advantage of the situation to boost their own profits.

The Conservatives will not go after their oil and gas buddies. The Liberal government has shown the same behaviour. I am wondering if my hon. colleague agrees with me that we immediately need to end fossil fuel subsidies and take that money and invest in the lives of Canadians who are struggling right now.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer to my colleague's question is yes. If she had read our budget, she would know that is absolutely our priority.

I would appreciate hearing the position of the New Democrats on our price on pollution. I believe they support it and I would like to hear, over the course of the day, what their position is on the increase in the price on pollution that we have proposed for next year.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to address this motion concerning carbon pollution pricing.

I will start by stating the obvious. Climate change is real, it is happening now and parts of Canada are warming faster than the global average. The latest science warns that to avoid severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C. Canadians want and expect real action on climate change.

The government has a plan, the emissions reduction plan released in March. Canada can meet its climate targets. The economy will continue to grow. This plan is realistic and affordable.

Carbon pricing is central to this plan, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it is based on the principle that it should not be free to pollute. Whoever creates pollution should be responsible for the cost. This is a fair and equitable approach.

Carbon pricing also lets individuals and businesses decide for themselves how best to reduce pollution. It does not dictate or ban anything; it makes certain activities a bit more expensive and rewards those who make cleaner choices.

We have also made affordability central to our approach. It is true that pricing carbon pollution is modestly increasing fuel costs, as my hon. friend from the Green Party said just a few moments ago, by about 2¢ per litre of gasoline this year.

We know every little bit counts, but carbon pricing has never been about raising revenues. Under our federal system, most households come out ahead, and low-income households particularly do much better. The average household receives more in climate action incentive payments than it faces in direct costs due to carbon pricing. This has been confirmed repeatedly in independent studies.

Outside of cities there are fewer options. People have to drive more. That is why the climate action incentive payment includes a 10% top-up for rural residents. We are not asking people to change their lives overnight. Taking transit or using an electric vehicle will not work for everyone right now. That is why we have the climate action incentive to ensure the policy is affordable for everyone.

Returning proceeds from carbon pollution pricing helps with affordability, but it also maintains the incentive to choose greener options. This is because the climate action incentive payment is not directly tied to a household's fossil fuel consumption. It is basic economics. If something costs more, people buy less of it. That is what carbon pricing does for pollution. Returning the funds does not change the equation.

Here is the real opportunity. Canadians who do make low-carbon changes benefit even more. Fuel efficient vehicles use less gas and therefore incur fewer vehicle costs. We are now increasing the rollout of electric vehicles. The government provides purchase incentives to bring the cost down. We are investing in more charging stations. The technologies keep improving, with longer range, better batteries and lower costs. Canadians are starting to do the math of rising carbon prices, volatile oil prices and tailpipe pollution versus less maintenance, no oil changes and charging at home. The equation is pretty simple.

We can look at our homes. Most of them are heated with natural gas. Better insulation, plugging leaks or a newer furnace, all use less energy, cut pollution and, importantly, save money. The government is supporting home energy retrofits through the greener homes grant, and this is being positively received by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians want to take action, they want to do their part and they want an approach that is fair and equitable. Carbon pricing is a nudge in that direction, and it is money back in their pockets to help use less and save more.

Let us not be nearsighted. Climate change is a global challenge, and the costs of inaction are high. Canadians want climate change action. The government owes it to them to be responsible and use policies that are the most efficient and cost effective.

Canada is not alone in fighting climate change and pricing carbon pollution. Around the world, markets are changing. Industries are moving away from products and services that create carbon pollution and are turning to cleaner and more sustainable options.

The cost of inaction on climate change is enormous. We are seeing that in Atlantic Canada right now. As emphasized in the most recent IPCC report, the costs of inaction are very high, including more severe floods, forest fires, heat waves and droughts, which all cause environmental and economic damage.

The Canadian Climate Institute's 2020 report “Tip of the Iceberg” confirms that weather-related disasters are costing Canada more each year, rising from tens of millions of dollars to billions of dollars annually in Canada.

Just wrapping up, our climate plan is working. Canadians have been clear about what they want, which is clean air, good jobs, a healthy environment and a strong economy. Our approach ensures that Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition under way. Evidence confirms that putting a price on carbon pollution works. It spurs clean growth, supports jobs and cuts the pollution causing climate change. Pricing carbon pollution and returning proceeds to Canadian families and businesses is an effective and affordable way to combat climate change while supporting the sustainability of Canadian communities.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member discussed how the carbon tax comes back in the form of rebates.

I am a member from British Columbia, and the price of gas as I was leaving was $2.33 a litre. There is no federal rebate. Provincially, only a very small minority of people get a rebate. People are struggling. They are struggling to fill their tanks. There is less disposable income. The costs are only going to get higher under this Liberal-NDP government.

Would the hon. member have any comments for British Columbians who are struggling to make ends meet?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, British Columbia has been very much on our minds. We are working very closely with the B.C. government, which believes in a price on pollution and was, in fact, the first in Canada to implement one.

I would remind the hon. member that last year, floods, droughts and wild fires caused $7.5 billion of damage. We are working the Province of British Columbia to rebuild, but the costs of climate change are real. I wish the hon. member would acknowledge that.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech, which was mainly about the carbon tax. I am not going to talk about that. I do not think it is a good idea to reduce or cancel it. However, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

We know that inflation is a concern for most Quebec households and workers. Does my colleague believe that it is time to acknowledge that the people most affected by it are those on fixed incomes who cannot count on wage increases to make up for what is happening? Would my colleague and his government be ready to change their minds and increase, for example, old age security for people aged 65 and up?

A whole segment of retirees who only have pension income is being abandoned, and the government decided to only increase the pensions of those aged 75 and up.

I believe that there is something that could be done. Why did they not do it?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, under the leadership of our Minister of Seniors, we are doing a lot for seniors, including a 10% increase in the OAS for people over 75.

Getting back to the topic of the day, the price of pollution, eight out of 10 families would be better off and would see an increase in what they receive back, and that includes seniors, who we know are stretched in these difficult times. Our government is there to help them, and our seniors minister is on the job doing exactly that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the oil and gas companies are making record profits. In fact, in the last quarter, they have made over $12 billion. Meanwhile, they are continuing to lobby for more subsidies, and the government is giving them more subsidies. Around the globe, windfall taxes are being put in place. The NDP has been advocating for an excess profit tax.

Will the government finally put in an excess profit tax for the oil and gas companies?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me the opportunity to say that emissions must come down. I think we agree that the energy sector needs to step up and invest, given that it is doing well right now.

To the question of subsidies, as the hon. member knows, we are putting a cap on oil and gas emissions. We are introducing a clean fuel standard, and very importantly, we are going to be phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. That will be done two years earlier than originally planned, in 2023.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I do not quite know how to start my speech because I am a little discouraged. We are used to the Conservatives saying things that border on populism, and they have a tendency to oversimplify things. They do not seem to have faith in the intelligence of Quebeckers and Canadians. Sometimes, we think they must be joking. At one point, the new leader came in and we thought he might put the party in order, but things are even worse now.

Since he came in, the Conservatives appear to be revelling in populism. It feels like they absolutely want Maxime Bernier back. I do not know what is going on.

I taught for 20 years and when I talked about inflation I usually devoted four to six hours to the topic, which is extremely complex and must be approached with a modicum of intelligence. No one can claim to have a magic formula to deal with inflation. That would be too easy, and yet that is what the Conservatives are suggesting. They say that they will solve everything by lowering the tax on petroleum products. That is what they want to do, but it does not work that way.

Usually, in economics—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to ask the hon. member to stop there for a few seconds.

I would ask hon. members to please take their conversations to the lobby.

The hon. member has the floor.