Debates of March 19th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my Conservative colleague, and he made no mention of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the price on pollution puts money back in the pockets of middle‑class families and the least fortunate. What is more, 80% of the people who pay the tax receive more in compensation than they pay in carbon tax. The tax does not apply in all provinces.

Obviously, the Conservative Party is not saying that. If my colleague is so concerned about the cost of living for people, why did he and his party vote against removing the GST from heating costs? Why did he vote against dental care for seniors? Why did he vote against a school nutrition program for children?

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

Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is currently on the rise across the country because the NDP has supported so many of the Liberal government's policies.

I do not think he heard what I was saying before, which is that there are families in this country who are paying more in the carbon tax than what they are getting back. According to the data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in Ontario, the province that I live in, the fiscal and economic net impact on a family is $1,820. I have no reason to not believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer; he is an independent officer of Parliament whose job is to assess this data and give us the information according to the data he assesses. This means the family is paying more than it is getting back in the carbon tax.

The fact is that there are premiers in this country who are now calling on the government to stop the carbon tax, to axe the tax on April 1. They are listening to their constituents, as I am doing, and 81% of my constituents have told me that they do not want this carbon tax to occur. They certainly do not want to pay for future increases that are going to happen under the Liberal government's plan.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, and in particular for such an important conversation, because we are in a cost of living crisis and the Liberal-NDP government could not care less. I can guarantee that the most common thing every MP in the chamber hears when they are back in their riding is that the cost of living is out of control. From groceries to gas and home heating, and everything in between, it has all become unaffordable for everyone.

What is the solution in the minds of the costly coalition? It is to ram through a 23% carbon tax hike on April 1. How out of touch can someone be? Nobody I have talked to has said, "You know what might help? What if we sent more money to Ottawa?” Nobody believes they are better off under the carbon tax, and this is why we are witnessing a carbon tax revolt. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been crystal clear: Canadians are losing hundreds of dollars each year, which will turn into thousands of dollars if we do not stop the planned quadrupling of the carbon tax.

Across this country, thousands of ordinary people are going to rallies to axe the tax. Young families, seniors, veterans, small business owners and new Canadians are all showing up en masse to add their voices to the growing chorus of discontent. They cannot afford to live with a decent quality of life anymore, never mind actually get ahead, and their Liberal and NDP MPs have turned their back on them. People will no longer sit in silence. They are tired of being told to shut up and just take it. They refuse to be lectured to by the Prime Minister because they dare to oppose his carbon tax.

The good news is that they are not alone. Two-thirds of Canadians oppose the 23% carbon tax hike, and it is no wonder people are mad. The Prime Minister and his NDP coalition partners sneer at people who drive long distances to go to work or to pick up their groceries. They ignore the legitimate concerns of seniors who can no longer afford to heat their home on the coldest of nights, and from their ivory tower they disparage anyone who points out the obvious: the carbon tax plan is a tax plan, not an environment plan.

My Liberal colleagues who do not believe me can look at the Order Paper question where their Minister of Environment admitted they do not even measure the annual amount of emissions directly reduced by their carbon tax. Even he admits they do not know whether the carbon tax is reducing emissions, so why are we paying for it?

The ridiculousness does not end there. The same minister went to a conference of municipal leaders and proclaimed Canada does not need any more new roads or highways, and while it took a couple days to clean up the environment minister's mess, the damage was done. The people living in communities like Carman, Sanford, Brunkild and Sperling heard the message loud and clear that the Liberal government does not think that Highway 3 should be twinned, for example.

Municipal leaders immediately started calling me, furious with the new Liberal plan to stop building roads in this country. What should really worry the Liberals is that, given their track record, nobody was actually surprised by such an out-of-touch and ridiculous announcement. Let us never forget that the Prime Minister scoffs at farmers who use propane or natural gas to dry their grain or heat their livestock barns. In fact, he pulled out all the stops to gut Bill C-234, making the bill about $900 million worse in the eyes of farms.

What is sad is that I do not think the Prime Minister even loses a wink of sleep over how his carbon tax is punishing farm families like those that live in places like Altona, Rathwell, Roland, Elm Creek and Oakville. These farmers are paying thousands of dollars in carbon taxes to stop their grain from sprouting or spoiling in the bin. When grocery prices are at record highs, who thinks it is a bright idea to make it that much more expensive to grow and produce the food we all eat?

My constituents will also never forget when the Prime Minister gave a carbon tax carve-out to 3% of Canadian households and left the other 97% out in the cold. People living in places like Winkler, Morden, Portage and Plum Coulee did not get the carve-out on their home heating. They too were ignored.

It was not until the Atlantic Liberal caucus was on the brink of a full-out revolt that the Prime Minister thought he could placate it by giving a temporary reprieve on the carbon tax to those who use home heating oil. While he may have stopped the insurgency within his own Liberal caucus, he reminded Canadians how politically calculating and motivated he can be when pushed into a corner. Atlantic Canadians are not the fools he took them for. They saw right through his hope of buying their vote before hiking their taxes again after the next election.

We only have to look at the words of the Liberal Minister of Rural Economic Development to see why some people got a carve-out and others did not. It was because the good people living in communities like Morris, Rosenfeld, Starbuck and Mariapolis do not vote Liberal. The sad reality is that the Prime Minister cares only about the people who vote for him rather than about doing what is right for all Canadians.

Now, on the verge of April 1, seven out of 10 premiers have publicly called upon the Prime Minister to cancel his 23% carbon tax hike. I do not recall the last time that seven premiers were openly opposed to a federal government policy. In my province of Manitoba, the NDP premier is not really saying much about the carbon tax hike. He said he has had private conversations with the Prime Minister on the matter, but it is telling that an NDP premier will not publicly defend the carbon tax hike. Who knows? Maybe he will see the writing on the wall and talk to our constituents, and he might even join the coalition of the common sense.

Among the seven premiers who oppose the 23% carbon tax hike, one just happens to be the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That Liberal premier did something rather brave, which was to stand up to the Prime Minister. It was not easy for the premier to go against the grain of his own party, and for doing so, the Prime Minister accused him of being a short-sighted thinker, but unlike most of the Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador, this Liberal stood up for the people he represents.

Before the Liberal MP for Avalon was placed in the witness protection program, he agreed with our Conservative caucus on the carbon tax and went so far as to call for a leadership review of the Prime Minister. In response to his comments, I called for every Canadian to have a review of the Prime Minister's leadership. It is called an election. It is time. Obviously the Prime Minister wants the carbon tax election, so let us have it. It would seem wrong not to mention what the Liberal member for Avalon summed up when he said, “People are thinking maybe it’s time for a change. I tell everybody—every leader, every party has a best-before date. Our best-before date is here.” Conservatives could not agree more.

The reason people are opposing the carbon tax hike is that they have no more nickels and dimes to give. Close to 50% of families are $200 away from declaring insolvency. Look at the skyrocketing number of people visiting food banks to get a clear picture of what is going on in our country right now. Every day, I and, I assume, all of my colleagues get emails from constituents who are struggling to get by. Just last week I received a letter from a senior who cannot afford to put gas in her car just to get to her doctor's appointments. She cannot afford to buy fruits and vegetables, and due to high food prices, she now does the bulk of her grocery shopping at Dollarama.

In closing, I urge Liberal MPs to stand up for their constituents who cannot afford to pay their bills and put food on their family's table, to vote in favour of our Conservative motion to spike the hike, and to be honest with themselves and acknowledge the last thing people can afford right now is another tax hike. There is no shame in acknowledging that the carbon tax has been a failure, in terms of both of our cost of living and reducing emissions. In fact, I think people would prefer that politicians admit when they are wrong, pivot and do what is right for the people we are sent here to serve rather than continuing down the path of ideology, and that they try to be a bit more pragmatic.

I hope that the common sense of the common people might just break through to the NDP-Liberal government. I fear it will not, which is why we need the carbon tax election, because it is time to axe the tax on everything for everyone, and for good.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's mentioning those people in desperate need and the need to help them. I co-chair the all-party anti-poverty caucus, and that has been a major focus of mine since 2015. We know by the numbers that the price on pollution has a very small impact on the cost of living, especially food inflation. Food inflation has been 20% over the last two years, which is a real problem, but the price on pollution amounts to well under 1% of that.

Using common sense, what common-sense measure, specifically on helping those in need, would the member like to see that would have an actual measurable impact on those people he ostensibly cares about?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague across the way for his work. We do share that same vision of working to help those people who are most vulnerable.

The carbon tax is not the entirety of the problem that the Liberal government has created. The cost of living crisis has had a number of factors that have lead to it. The best thing we could do is provide people with hope, opportunity and prosperity. The Liberals could do that by being job creators in this country, giving an opportunity to people to work hard, know their worth, step up and create a good quality of life for themself and their family. That is what the next Conservative government will do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to an issue that my colleague touched on in his speech, which is the vulnerable situation seniors are in. I would like to come back to it because, this morning, in the House, I had the honour of tabling the report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. At that committee, my colleague's party and all the parties in the room unanimously recognized that we need to increase old age security for seniors. This could actually put money back into seniors' wallets and pockets.

Does he support his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities who voted for Bill C-319?

Will he continue to pressure the Liberals, not just on the carbon tax, but to think about other solutions to help people in vulnerable situations, including seniors, by increasing old age security for all seniors and address this inequity between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, a number of seniors have reached out to my office with this exact complaint, that they cannot afford to live anymore.

I do not blame them. Many are on a fixed income, and they are seeing the dollar value continually deteriorate from the Liberal tax-and-spend inflationary policy that is driving down the value of our goods and driving up the cost of our goods. The best thing we could do is make sure that the dollars they are getting from their pension, whether public or private, are going to go farther. The actions that the federal government takes have a major impact, and that is what we are going to need to step forward to do, to make sure that we reduce the costs for those seniors so those dollars go just as far as they need to.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals cannot measure how much carbon is being emitted, then they cannot measure how much it is being reduced. Why are they charging a carbon tax?

What is the matter with Dollarama? Giant Tiger does have fresh fruit at a pretty good deal.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with Dollarama. The unfortunate reality is that most folks where I live would rather go to Co-op to get the quality they expect. Giant Tiger is, of course, another great option for those people who have it locally available to them.

Why are we charging a carbon tax without knowing the results? That is a very good question. The fact of the matter is that people would not be in a carbon tax revolt if they saw any outcome, in terms of our environmental indicators, from the carbon tax. What they see right now is no value for money, and themselves getting poorer and unable to afford the quality of life we all deserve.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all day long today we have heard that people get more back in the carbon tax than they pay, which is categorically false, as proven by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Conservatives know common sense. If one does not take the tax in the first place, one will not have to give back anything to Canadians.

With respect to Bill C-234, and I am wondering whether my colleague could comment on this, we hear from the Liberals all day long that it is Conservatives who refuse to bring the bill back up for debate. We have brought the bill up six times, and I have had the opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation that would give farmers a reprieve from the carbon tax. Taxing farmers and making their inputs more expensive would pass costs along to consumers.

I am just wondering whether my colleague could comment on Bill C-234 and why we need to get the bill passed in its original form.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what a good, common-sense question. If one does not tax something, one does not need to give it back. What a way to look at the world.

The fact is that the rebate does not take into account that, just as those farmers have the costs passed on to them, every consumer has the costs passed on to them. Not only is the rebate falling short of what is spent directly in carbon taxes, but the indirect costs are also far higher.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and an honour.

I am splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Beaches—East York, who, I think, asked a question a little bit ago.

As today is actually Father's Day in the heritage country that my family is from, I want to say buona Festa del Papà to my dad back in Vancouver. I actually just spent a few days with my family and parents in Vancouver last week for March break. It was great to see them doing well.

Before I give my formal remarks, today we had the consumer inflation report produced for the month of February in Canada. We had some really good news. As an economist, I saw the consumer price index was below 3%, at 2.8%. Looking at the details, the first headline in that report indicates that “Canadians pay less for cellular services and Internet access services”.

This debate is about affordability and carbon pricing, so we will talk about that. However, to start off, I just want to read two things:

Consumers who signed on to a cell phone bill plan in February paid 26.5% less year over year, following a 16.4% decline in January. The year-over-year decline was driven by lower prices for new plans and increases in data allowances for some cellular [services].

Similarly, prices for Internet access services fell 13.2% on a year-over-year basis in February, stemming from a monthly decline of 9.4%....

Grocery inflation continues to ease.

Prices for food purchased from stores continued to ease on a year-over-year basis in February (+2.4%) compared with January [which was at 3.4%]. Slower price growth was broad-based with prices for fresh fruit (-2.6%), processed meat (-0.6%) and fish (-1.3%) declining....

This is progress and we are seeing it across the board. The core inflation rate was also very well contained. I anticipate and do hope, as an economist and in my role as a member of Parliament sitting on a couple of committees, to see the Bank of Canada take some action to reduce rates later this year, which I think is timely and well needed. Inflation is well under control in Canada, and we have definitely had some good monthly prints.

I will now turn to the debate at hand.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate today.

Climate change is a very serious issue for our country, and I have to say that what we are seeing right now is worrisome. We had a very atypical winter. There is hardly any snow, and temperatures are much milder than we are used to.

Obviously, the impact of climate change is being felt across Canada. We have seen it over the past year with, for example, the storm that ravaged Nova Scotia and the historic wildfires that burned up hectares and hectares across the country. I am sure my colleagues will recall that the air was filled with smoke even right here in the capital. It was hard to breathe, even here in the House of Commons. Obviously, many people with respiratory problems suffered as a result. That is just one of the adverse health effects of climate change.

It is also important for us to realize that climate change is having a major impact on infrastructure in communities across the country. It has an enormous economic cost. I think we need to say it loud and clear: The reality is quite simply that Canada cannot afford to stand idly by and do nothing to combat climate change.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is taking this issue seriously and taking action. Obviously, this is a complex issue and there are no simple solutions. However, experts agree that our pollution pricing system is the best tool for reducing emissions while putting money back in the pockets of Canadians.

In fact, when carbon pollution pricing is applied correctly, as it is here in Canada, it effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions and makes life more affordable for Canadians by ensuring that they get back more money than they pay in.

Every three months, and on April 15, we give hundreds of dollars back to families through the Canada carbon rebate. It gives eight out of 10 families more money than they pay in, while ensuring that the big polluters pay their fair share. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, a family of four will receive up to $1,800 in 2024-25 under the base Canada carbon rebate. I am pleased to say that the first payment for 2024-25 will go out next month. The other quarterly payments will follow in July, October and January.

In addition to paying these base amounts, the federal government is proposing legislative changes with Bill C‑59 in order to double the rural top-up starting this year, increasing it to 20% of the base Canada carbon rebate. It is important to us to recognize that rural residents have higher energy needs and more limited access to cleaner transportation options.

The Canada carbon rebate is just one way our government is helping Canadians pay their energy bills. The Prime Minister announced several new measures last fall to support Canadians. Since November 9, the federal fuel charge on deliveries of heating oil has been temporarily paused. This means that households using heating oil are getting more time and financial support to switch to a heat pump. We estimate that this measure will save a household using 1,500 litres of home heating oil $261 in 2023-24.

We are also moving forward with making the average heat pump free. With this measure, we are helping people with low to median incomes move away from oil heating in provinces and territories that have agreed to support the delivery of the federal government's enhanced oil to heat pump affordability grants. The grant for switching to a heat pump has now been increased to $15,000, on top of provincial or territorial grants of up to $5,000. Our government is also offering an upfront payment of $250 to people with low to median incomes who use heating oil and who sign up to switch to a heat pump through a joint federal-provincial government program.

As members can clearly see, our government is really helping Canadians in the green transition. Of course, that support builds on everything that we are already doing to support families that are struggling to make ends meet. For example, the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that we are in the process of implementing across the country will help many families to save a lot of money. Thanks to this new national system, families across Canada will be able to save up to approximately $2,610 to $14,300 per year for every child who attends a regulated child care facility. There is no doubt that this will make a big difference in families' budgets.

Our government continues to have the backs of Canadians, as it has from day one in 2015 to today. We will always put in place measures that aid Canadians on affordability, help grow our economy and provide a bright future for all families from coast to coast to coast, all those hard-working families that get up in the morning and do the right thing for their families and for this beautiful, blessed country we live in.

I look forward to questions and comments.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. My colleague canvassed and campaigned for the leader of the provincial Liberal Party. She announced today that, if the Liberals get elected, which I highly doubt, she will cut the carbon tax.

Which leader does he support?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King—Vaughan ran on a platform in the last election on pricing carbon. She ran with the former leader of the Conservative Party on a platform on pricing carbon. It was in their platform, so she is either misleading the House or misleading her constituents, or both. This is what she is doing.

I am the member for Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I represent my constituents. I have always been straight up with them, and I always will be. Others need to do the same.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his carbon tax cost analysis, the Parliamentary Budget Officer talked about the quintiles that benefited most from the carbon tax. He said that the most disadvantaged in terms of the fuel charge were in the top income quintiles, that is, the people who earn the most money and, ultimately, consume the most.

Of course, oil companies have to pay the carbon tax, too. They generate a lot of greenhouse gases, so they pay more. If we eliminate the carbon tax, will oil companies end up getting even more money? Will the less fortunate be penalized and get even less money?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution helps the most vulnerable people in this country. If we got rid of the carbon tax, it would only help the wealthiest people in Canada.

The highest-income earners will benefit and the lowest earners and middle-class Canadians, who are the majority of hard-working Canadians in this country, will lose out.

I appreciate my colleague's question. I want to say that we are helping Canadians and that we always want to help the middle class.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today my colleague, the member for Victoria, asked similar questions and did not receive a good response, so I will ask this member. In terms of output-based pricing, New Democrats do not believe it is fair. We do believe in carbon pricing. However, Suncor pays 14 times less than an average Canadian in carbon pricing.

Why will the government not make big oil companies pay what they owe and pay their fair share?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I work with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe on the parliamentary association for the Ahmadiyya community. She is one of the co-chairs.

I would like to say that all Canadians and all Canadian companies need to pay their fair share in this transition to a green and greening economy, as I like to refer to it. With regard to our carbon pricing system, for individuals we know that out of eight out of 10 Canadians, and eight in 10 Canadian families even more so, are made better off with this system. We know that better is always possible, of course.

With regard to industries and so forth, there are about 800,000 Canadians who work in the energy sector from coast to coast to coast. They are hard-working and we will support them in this transition, but we know we will need to utilize those resources in this transition as we move forward. I look forward to having these continuing conversations with the hon. member and with all colleagues on how we continue to grow a strong economy and continue to have a healthy environment and a bright future for all Canadians, particularly our children.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the conversation around pricing pollution, but I want to start with a threshold question that we all have to answer: Do members care to take action to save our planet? Do they care to reduce emissions for our kids? Do they care? If the answer is yes, then we get to a different question, which is how we are going to reduce emissions in the most efficient way. If we want to respect taxpayer dollars, then we reduce emissions in the most efficient way.

We hear a lot about common sense from across the aisle. Common sense presumably should be that polluters pay, and pollution, members should know, is a classic market failure. I have heard some people bandying about different economic opinions on what a market failure is. In this case, the cost of polluting is costless to the polluter and is borne collectively by all of us. What is the answer to that? The answer is a price signal. The common-sense answer, very simply, is to make polluters pay. That is what this price on pollution does. We do not want to penalize people or make them worse off. We just want to change the behaviour, so matched with that price, internalizing that negative externality, we make sure there is a rebate and recycle the revenue.

I have heard people go back and forth on this. The fact is that, of the 100% of the revenue that goes back to the provinces of origin, 90% goes back to households directly. If there were a motion today that said that 100% should go back to households, I would vote for it for sure. We could improve it, but the fact is that 90% goes back. It is largely revenue-neutral.

I heard a question asking if it works. Of course it works. This is not me saying this. If we look at the emissions progress report for 2030, we see more than a steady decline. We see a decline from business as usual. If we had taken no action from 2015 on, or the kind of action we saw under the Harper government, we would have seen emissions rise to 815 megatonnes by 2030. If we look at that progress report, does anyone in the House know what it stands to be with all of the action we have put into place? It stands to be 467 megatonnes, which is not nearly enough and not where we need it to be, but that is a 43% reduction from business as usual and 36% toward our 40% target. We are very close to being where we say we want to be.

By the way, a good amount of that is because of the price on pollution. The progress report says that 30% of that reduction in emissions comes from the price on pollution. When we look at that delta of 815 megatonnes down to 467 megatonnes, 23% of that total reduction from business as usual comes from the price on pollution, so, yes, it works as part of a very serious overall comprehensive climate plan.

It is easy to care about climate change when we are well fed. I have heard a lot of talk in the House that the price on pollution is making people poorer, the worst among us, and it is hurting those who are already hurting. It is deeply cynical to trade on a real affordability crisis, to trade on the real stress and real struggles of so many people in need, to undermine an effective and efficient climate action that makes most households whole. It does not increase the cost of everything to send people to food banks. I said this when asking a question of a colleague and did not receive a good answer. We have seen 20% food inflation these last two years, and the price on pollution, economists tell us, accounts for under 1% of any inflationary impact. That is not the cause of the affordability crisis.

We could have a very interesting debate about interest rates. Maybe the member for Carleton would tell us that he wants to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We have had very interesting debates about interest rates and what is truly driving the cost of living crisis. It is absolutely not, economists will tell us, the price on pollution.

We could also have an interesting debate about social welfare in this country. We have increased the Canada child benefit significantly. We have brought hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. We have increased the Canada workers benefit. We have increased the GIC for seniors. Do members know what provincial governments have done, largely Conservative provincial governments? They have not increased welfare and disability supports in line with the rise in inflation. I am standing here in Ontario, and the member could tell me what the Ford government has done to make sure disability payments keep pace with the cost of inflation, but Conservatives have done next to nothing.

Do we want to talk about the real cost of living crisis and what drives that cost of living crisis? We could talk about food inflation. We could talk about interest rates, and we could talk about the lack of provincial action in their areas of responsibility. What we should not talk about, if we care about facts in the House, is the price on pollution.

Much has been made of the PBO report. I wonder sometimes, listening to the debate in the House, whether anyone has actually read this report, so let me quote from it. On a fiscal basis, “most households will see a net gain [versus] the...fuel charge...and related GST”. As well, “The fiscal-only impact...is broadly progressive.”

Hang on. What is this about? The PBO says it is going to cost us more. I am going to be absolutely fair in this, and there is a real debate we should have because what the PBO actually says is that, on a fiscal basis, for the cash-in, cash-out money that households pay and get back, 80% of households are, in fact, better off.

What the PBO goes on to say is that, when one takes into account GDP impacts from the price on pollution, we see modest GDP reductions, though they are significant on a household basis, so most households are worse off if one includes fiscal and economic factors. They do not say that about low-income households so, again, trading on food banks and offering no real suggestions for helping people out of poverty is completely incorrect, even in the PBO's analysis.

Let us focus a little more on whether the PBO is right. Fiscal analysis is easy. It is money in and money out. On an economic basis, I would say they are wrong. It is not gospel.

We have this from the American Economic Journal, for example, on the macro impact of carbon pricing: “We find no evidence for a negative impact on employment or GDP growth but rather find a zero to modest positive impact.”

There is also this, from the IMF, from June: “Countries that do not recycle revenues experience a substantial economic downturn while countries that recycle revenues only display a muted impact on economic activity.” For those keeping track at home, Canada recycles revenues.

Worse, and this is fatal, let me quote the PBO as well. I wonder how this is not part of the conversation: “The scope of the report is limited to estimating the distributional impact of the federal fuel charge and does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change.”

Maybe Conservatives could explain to me why we would consider the negative economic impacts of one side of the ledger of the price on pollution, and the fiscal impacts are better for households, but we would not consider alternative scenarios.

We hear about “technology, not taxes”, but that is going to cost households more. It is going to be paid for by taxes or, worse, if we do not take into account the real economic costs of unchecked climate change. Let us be absolutely clear. If one does not have a serious climate plan in this country, and the federal Conservatives are not interested in a serious climate plan, we are going to see unchecked climate change.

Let us return to costs. We have Conservatives who have no plan. Since I have been in Parliament, they have had no plan, except for Erin O'Toole, who was promptly ousted. Why was he ousted? For having a plan, and “technology, not taxes” is not a plan.

What does the price on pollution do? The price on pollution says to consumers that it will be more expensive to pollute. Consumers will seek out cleaner alternatives and businesses will respond by innovating to meet consumer demand. If one does not have that price, which is internalizing that negative externality, businesses are not going to innovate. We are not going to see serious climate action from the private sector.

If one wants technology, not taxes, it is going to be left to government subsidies alone, and where do government subsidies come from, Conservative friends? They come from taxes.

If one wants one's taxes to go up, then axe the tax.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague across the way was so adamant for the need to make the carbon tax revenue-neutral because it goes against a comment made by someone else who stated, twice in the House, that the government made a decision to make it revenue-neutral.

This member then stood up another time and said that it is revenue-neutral at the federal level. Guess who that other member was? It was the exact same member.

Finance Canada told public accounts that, last year, $670 million was not given back in rebates. It was kept by the government. Going back as far as 2019, it started at $100 million, which was kept, per the public accounts, for government programming, not returned in rebates.

What is it? Is it revenue-neutral, as the member has stated twice, or is it not revenue-neutral, as public accounts has stated, and as he stated earlier today?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, 90% of the dollars go directly back to households. On the revenue neutrality, 100% of revenues go back to provinces of origin: 90% goes to households directly and the other 10% goes into businesses, municipalities and—

[An hon. member]

It does not.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is that other 10%, and there is a credible debate to be had as to whether that 10% should be allocated the way it has been allocated. I would argue that, if there were a vote in the House, and members are free to bring forward the motion, I would vote for 100% revenue neutrality, but when they want to axe it entirely, it is a joke of a motion. I will vote that down every time.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the fact that the polluters should pay. The NDP, of course, agrees. The PBO report stated that Canada could generate $4 billion in revenues from a windfall profits tax. When the NDP called for big oil to pay what it owes to help families, the Liberals sided with the Conservatives, voted it down and would not support it.

Why are the Liberals more interested in protecting corporate profits than helping working people?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my last two budget submissions, I spoke to excess profit taxes. We have seen them on banks and insurance companies. We have seen them from U.K. Conservatives on oil and gas. It is absolutely a conversation we should have in the House. U.K. Conservatives were, I think at one point, models for Conservatives here until they lost their way, but if U.K. Conservatives have put this in place, then there is no reason we cannot have that debate and put it in place here as well.