Debates of Nov. 7th, 2023

Carbon Pricing

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in and try to get some answers for the question I asked the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources last week. I am happy that the parliamentary secretary is here because he has said a few things tonight that I would really like to delve into. We will do just the facts if he is okay with that, and if he can manage to answer some things straightforwardly.

One is that they have always said that the carbon tax, after eight long years of this NDP-Liberal government, was an environmental plan. They have also said that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. They have also said that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is not true. He said that 60% of Canadians get less money back after they pay the carbon tax. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said about their carbon tax plan.

If the carbon tax was revenue-neutral and was an environmental plan, why was there the flip-flop last week? Why do they now say that they had to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax as an affordability measure?

Both of those statements cannot be true. It is impossible. The carbon tax cannot be revenue-neutral and eight of out of 10 Canadians, as they falsely claim, get more money back if they have to flip-flop with what they say is a nationwide program to say, with their NDP colleagues, that they need to do this as an affordability measure. I would love to hear from the parliamentary secretary if he can square the circle that this is an affordability measure now. It is actually impossible. Everyone across Canada knows this, and 3% of Canadians now get an exemption from the carbon tax, while 97% do not.

They have said, all week, that this is a nationwide exemption. It is not true. Most of these exemptions are where the Prime Minister was getting decimated in the polls, in Atlantic Canada, and the Liberals are desperate to stop the bleeding in their polling numbers. This flip-flop had nothing to do with environmental science and everything to do with political science. I am excited to hear the answers to a few of these questions.

While I am on the topic, he is talking about the carbon tax being an environmental policy, which we all know is not true, as it is a tax policy, because, today, the environment commissioner said that, with their carbon tax as their flagship policy, they will not meet one environmental target they have made. They will not make their emissions target by 2030.

His good friend, the member for Whitby, said that Canadians will feel pain because of this carbon tax. They were exactly right. They felt the pain with zero environmental gain, and two million people in this country line up at a food bank every month. That is their record. I would love to see how the carbon tax can be an environmental plan when it is actually a tax plan, which is revenue-neutral, but they had to flip-flop to make sure it is now an affordability measure. Could he please explain that to Canadians because I cannot?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I can tell that the member opposite cannot explain to his constituents concepts like a market-based instrument or how a revenue-neutral carbon pricing scheme works, because he cannot explain it in the House, and he could not explain it at the doors in 2021 when he ran for the Conservative Party. Therefore, allow me to.

Yes, indeed, our carbon pricing plan is revenue-neutral. That means that all of the money that comes in from the carbon tax, as the member would like to call it, goes back to families in our communities. In fact, a family of four in Saskatchewan will receive $1,360. That is a number they will not see in an email that the member has sent to a constituent. He will not remind them that it is a revenue-neutral program. He will not say that they are actually getting a refund or a rebate every single year, and that it is tax-free.

The reason that the price is on pollution is that Saskatchewan, like some other provinces, continues to use coal to generate all of its electricity. Therefore, even if someone is using an electric car or a heat pump, unfortunately a lot of their electricity is still coming from coal. In 2005, Ontario also generated a lot of electricity using coal, and, like Saskatchewan, it had a lot of smog days. There are smog days in Saskatchewan now, and a lot of it has to do with burning coal. Coal is bad for the environment and it is bad for our health.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that if they do not have the floor, they need to listen. If they have anything to say, unfortunately they are not going to be able to participate, except for the hon. member who asked the question, who will have the floor. I ask members to please be respectful.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say it again: The rebate of $1,360 is what families of four in Saskatchewan receive through the climate action rebate.

The member might wave his hands and say that is just hogwash. Two members from Saskatchewan are now waving their hands at me as if $1,360 were irrelevant to their constituents. I think it actually is quite relevant and it is quite a lot of money, money that will be well spent by families who need it. Despite the fact that those colleagues all ran on a similar plan to price carbon in 2021, they do not want anybody to know that because they want families to feel like they have always been against environmental policies to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to fight climate change. However, since 2015, the Liberal Party and the government have been there for Canadians. We have been relentless in our pursuit of solutions to make life more affordable for families in our country, and we are also doing that while fighting climate change.

As the commissioner said, the fight on climate change needs more ambition; it needs stronger targets and more action. That is what we are doing. We are redoubling our efforts to fight climate change and lower our emissions in Canada, while the Conservatives have zero ambition, zero targets and no plan. I am curious to know from the member what his plan to fight climate change might be. I have never actually heard the member say “climate change”, so I would encourage him to talk about climate change a bit in this debate and tell Canadians and people in his riding what his plan is to fight it.

In a year when wildfires burned out of control, hundreds of thousands of Canadians were forced out of their homes and it has been the hottest year ever on record, inaction is certainly not an option for our government. We need to move faster. We need to be more ambitious in fighting climate change. There is just no way around it. We have to take action now to fight climate change. Our pollution pricing system is one of the best ways to do so and is a component of any serious plan to fight climate change, as Erin O'Toole put in the Conservatives' plan to fight climate change in 2021.

With regard to our decision for a temporary pause, I will come back in the rebuttal.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member brought up the rebate. I talk about our climate policies all the time because in Saskatchewan, we have lowered our per capita emissions more than any other province in Canada has over the last five years, with carbon capture and sequestration and new technologies. The new technologies in farming have sequestered more carbon, and we are doing a wonderful job of ensuring that we have climate sustainability in the province of Saskatchewan. With respect to a smog day in Saskatchewan, that is how out of touch the member is. What a ridiculous comment that is. We are the land of blue skies, and we have a beautiful province.

I would just like to say that the member is so incompetent. He says that people get $1,200 back, but with carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, the people of Saskatchewan pay $2,600 a year in carbon tax. Therefore, if he can tell me how $1,200 is more than $2,600, I would love it. I would love it if he could tell me how that math works out, but he is not very good at telling the truth in the chamber.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to avoid answering the question, but the member just called into question whether or not I can be honest in this chamber, and I think that goes against parliamentary procedure. That was unparliamentary language, and I would ask him to stand and apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Hon. members have to be extremely careful in how they describe someone or indicate whether someone is telling the truth.

I will give the hon. member an opportunity to withdraw his statement.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for saying that he cannot figure out math or for being unable to square the circle of the carbon tax—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not an apology. The hon. member knows full well that we have to be very careful with some of the language we use in the House. I would ask the him whether or not he wants to apologize for saying the member is dishonest.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I apologize for the comments I made, Madam Speaker.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government has been there to support Canadians. I want to point out that when colleagues opposite suggest certain people are paying more for certain things, it really does a disservice to the debate and the quality of the conversations we have in this House.

I want to point out that the quintile of Canadians who might receive less back in the climate action incentive than they pay are the wealthiest Canadians. They are the top quintile of earners. It just goes to show that the Conservatives are always here to fight for millionaires and big oil. When it comes to fighting for affordability or the middle class, they are literally nowhere to be seen.

Since I am by myself in the chamber, I will finish there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member cannot say whether there are or are not members in the chamber.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:23 p.m.)