Madam Speaker, what is really difficult, when the Conservatives want to talk about the environment, is that we have now had two speakers stand up to try to play down the importance of the price on pollution.
It is really quite unfortunate because it is not only on the floor of the House of Commons that they spread misinformation, but also, sadly, through social media, in particular, and emails. In all likelihood, they send out literally millions of emails. I am one of the recipients of their emails, and they are so misleading.
Let us talk about the price on pollution. There are two components: the rebate portion and the tax portion. It has been well established that over 80% of Canadians receive more money back than they pay for a price on pollution.
Canada is not the only jurisdiction in the world that uses a price on pollution. There are even some American states that use a price on pollution. The arguments that the Conservatives use, depending on the day, do not hold water. They are like a strainer. At the end of the day, what we are seeing is a Conservative Party that is more concerned with trying to give a false impression than truly caring about our environment, and ultimately, taxation and supporting Canadians by increasing their disposable income. I will expand on that.
First and foremost, every member of the Conservative caucus, with the exception of those who were elected in a by-election, campaigned on a price on pollution, including the leader of the Conservative Party. Then they changed their position, and it is not the first or the second time that they have changed their position. They changed their position with the current leader, who made the initial flip-flop, so they now oppose it.
When the Conservatives say that they oppose it, they are trying to give the impression that the rebate is less than the tax, which is not true for over 80% of the people who receive the backstop. If we take a look at it, we will find that it is having a positive impact in our communities. That is why we even have some provincial jurisdictions that have their own programs. They realize that putting a price on pollution is an effective way of dealing with emissions, amongst other things.
I would suggest that it is not unique to see the Conservatives flip-flopping and completely disregarding their election platform. Members can remember that last week, we had a vote on an actual tax break, a GST holiday for Canadians. Every one of the Conservatives voted against it, yet every one of them campaigned in favour of a GST holiday break in the last federal election.
What does that say about the Conservative platform, those major policy announcements that come out during an election, such as the Conservatives saying that they were in support of a price on pollution and giving a tax break with a GST holiday, when it comes down to voting, that they actually vote against them? They voted against a price on pollution, and they voted against a GST tax break for the holiday season.
The irony of it all is that we have Conservatives going across the country saying they are going to axe the tax. Let us look at what they are telling Canadians and what they are doing. In Winnipeg North, the Conservatives would get rid of the carbon rebate. That would mean a whole lot of money would be coming out of the pockets of at least 80% of the constituents I represent. Plus, when we factor in the rebate compared to the tax the Conservatives say they would be axing, it means the disposable income based on the election commitment under that leader would see less disposable income because of their so-called axe the tax. That is not a net gain for 80% of the constituents I represent.
The Conservatives do not have a problem with misleading Canadians. They are telling people that they are going to be better off because of their proposal, when they know for a fact that is not the case. They know that, and then, when it comes time to do something to provide tax relief for Canadians, again, the Conservatives are doubling down. They are voting against one other issue that they said that they would give to Canadians, a GST holiday during the season.
It makes no sense unless, of course, we listen to the leader of the Conservative Party and think of his ambitions. That is why there was a very interesting article that made the national news last week. It talked about a lot of the Conservatives on the inside. Members of Parliament were concerned about the leadership of the Conservative Party, and I can appreciate why. They went to the doors and said, “We are going to give a tax holiday during the holiday season”, and now they are being forced to vote against the tax holiday for the Christmas season. The Conservatives went to the doors in the last election and said, “I support a price on pollution”, and now they are voting against the price on pollution.
It is not like Conservative members were given a choice. They were told to bring this forward. It is interesting that it was two Manitoba members of Parliament who brought forward this motion. In the last budget, or I think it was the previous one, we saw a major commitment to the province of Manitoba. Canada's national Water Agency will be located in Manitoba's capital city of Winnipeg. The premier, the mayor and many different stakeholders are very happy to see a national government that recognizes the importance of having a water strategy, and that the national office will be located in the city of Winnipeg.
When I talk about the environment, and the many things that are taking place, I could provide a list of things I have noted, whether they are the banning of single-use plastics, making zero-emission vehicles more affordable, the serious cut on emissions or the expansion of 44 national wildlife areas and three national parks. Canada's emissions are tracking downward, which is so encouraging to see. There are so many things, such as the greener homes program.
I figure the national story that we heard last week about how the leader of the Conservative Party has absolute and total control of his caucus members is something Canadians should be very much aware of. I would like to quote from the story, which reads:
After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.
The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada the “freest country in the world” maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members....
Conservative MPs' words and actions are closely scrutinized by the leader's office. Partisanship is encouraged. Fraternizing with elected officials from other parties is a no-no.
This means they cannot come over to talk to me. The article continues, “Those who follow these rules are rewarded. Those who don't often have to suffer consequences.” We can talk to the member for Abbotsford to get a sense of the consequences.