44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/27/22 10:53:42 a.m.
- Watch
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.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:05:41 a.m.
- Watch
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?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:06:14 a.m.
- Watch
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.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:49:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about misinformation. To give the impression that the federal government is not supporting housing is just not true. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, for example, in the area of housing co-ops. We have had investments, and for the first time we are actually providing funds to encourage the housing co-op industry to grow as a whole.
My question to the member is more specific in regard to subsidies going to oil companies, and this is something that we have been working on. In fact, there is a commitment to end all oil subsidies by the end of 2023. We know that we cannot just click our heels and make them end, but there is a target to end them by 2023. Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to that?
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:50:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think we could ask anyone in my riding of Victoria or in Vancouver or Toronto whether the Liberals have been addressing the housing crisis, and they would say no.
However, on fossil fuel subsidies, there is a commitment to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, but I am extremely disappointed that the government refuses to end all fossil fuel subsidies. The government wants to continue to hand out billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies under the guise of carbon capture and storage, which means that it is handing over our taxpayer dollars to an unproven technology, one that the IPCC has said is actually years out. Instead of targeting it to companies that are doing the right thing and trying to take carbon out of the air, the government is actually giving it to oil and gas companies to use.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:22:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I offer my condolences, as well, for the loss of my colleague's mother over the summer.
I would like to start by saying that I was really shocked when I heard the new leader of the Conservative Party talking about men taping up their boots. I was shocked because he failed to mention women, who also work, but then again, we know the record this current Conservative leader has on upholding the rights of women.
The fact is that, once again, the Conservative Party is talking about oil and gas as their only debate, and they are not calling out the elephant in the room, which is greedy oil and gas companies. They are talking about the price of groceries, but they are not willing to call out Galen Weston of Loblaws, which has earned record profits.
I just want to read, very quickly, a tweet from UN Secretary António Guterres on the fossil fuel industry. He said, “The fossil fuel industry is feasting on subsidies & windfall profits while household budgets shrink & our planet burns.
“We need to hold the industry and its enablers to account...I call on all developed economies to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies.”
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:39:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Davenport this afternoon.
I am pleased to rise to speak to the Conservative opposition motion before us today. I want to say on the record that I love opposition days, which give us the opportunity to debate and talk at length about policy with our colleagues.
The motion before us today reads, and I quote:
...given that the government's tax increases on gas, home heating and, indirectly, groceries, will fuel inflation, and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported the carbon tax costs 60% of households more than they get back, the government must eliminate its plan to triple the carbon tax.
I take exception to the claim that carbon pricing is a tax. Merriam-Webster defines a tax as a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions.
In my view, this is a program designed to set a price on carbon with all proceeds being reinvested, not used for government programs. It is therefore not a tax in the traditional sense of the word.
It is important, because on this side of the House we talk about pricing pollution and pricing carbon. That is essentially what we are doing. The Conservative Party obviously talks about it as a tax, but a tax, in a general sense, is for the general collection of government revenues. It is not often recognized by my opposition friends that the way in which the federal backstop program actually works is it returns the revenue that is collected.
Yes, that is a collection on a macro level and there can be a differentiation between households and businesses, but that is the whole idea. We are trying to price a negative externality that is associated with GHG emissions, because this is about climate. I know that affordability is a top-of-mind issue. No one on this side of the House would disagree, but at the same time, what I have not heard in the conversations this morning, particularly from His Majesty's loyal opposition, is much conversation about a real plan to reduce emissions. We have to take those two conversations hand in hand.
I did ask in my question for the member for Cumberland—Colchester why the Conservative Party was against a core Conservative principle, and that is that this government takes the view that we want to put a price on carbon, such that there is a market incentive for changed behaviour for businesses and individuals to be able to adjust accordingly. This is what I find ironic about the Conservative position. Notwithstanding that, I have not heard much at all about climate in the couple of weeks since the member for Carleton has become the official opposition leader. Nor have I heard much of an alternative.
It seems like we are going to rely on technology. Therefore, how is the government going to incentivize the private sector to take on that technology? Is it going to be through government subsidies? Is it going to be through a regulatory model? There is not much conversation on what that holds.
At the core of what we are talking about in carbon pricing is setting that price to change behaviour and draw investment from the private sector to make some of those technological innovations, which it seems the Conservative Party perhaps thinks will be done out of the goodness of one's heart without an actual economic model to do so.
It is important to recognize that economists and organizations around the world recognize that carbon pricing is the cheapest way to reduce emissions. I recognize that the member for Carleton certainly has a level of distrust against international organizations. We have seen that with the World Economic Forum in the way that he has criticized that organization. I do not know if that extends to the OECD, but the OECD does recognize carbon pricing in this domain. It is yet to be seen what the Conservative Party's take is on that view.
Instead of allowing the market to decide, incentivizing individual households, businesses and the economy, the Conservatives want to have, again as I mentioned in my question, big bossy government programs. They want government, at a large macro level, to intervene as opposed to driving private sector innovation and ingenuity. I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why the Conservative Party does not understand or believe this is a principle that can be used to reduce emissions.
Again, let us remember why this is being done. It is being done in the context that we have a climate emergency. We have to be able to reduce emissions.
We were in the House last night talking about hurricane Fiona and I was very careful not to make those two connections, because we wanted to ensure the debate was really about providing support to Atlantic Canadians. Although the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake was on record as saying that climate and hurricanes had no connection, which I was appalled to hear as I watched the debate from my hotel room. There is a connection. The frequency of these storms is tied to the work we have to do on climate. The Conservative Party, in one breath, seemed to talk about that yesterday, and then it has comes up with no real tangible solutions in its motion today.
I would also like to challenge the part of the motion on home heating. In my region, Atlantic Canada, there is no carbon tax levied on home heating because the provinces have introduced their own carbon pricing systems. Therefore, this motion would have little effect in Atlantic Canada at this time.
This government recognizes that it is imperative to focus on both affordability and emission reductions at the same time. That is precisely why we have put in place a $250-million program to help low-income residents move away from using oil to heat their homes. A total of $120 million from this program will be earmarked for the Atlantic provinces.
I want to make sure I am on the record saying that I am proud of the way our Atlantic caucus advocated for that specific program. There are a lot of Atlantic Canadians who still use home heating oil to warm their homes, and this money is going to go directly to support their transition in order to make sure we can avoid the volatility of their energy bills, which we have seen in the global market on home heating oil.
I also want to say it is very clear that the Conservatives are taking a complete opposition to carbon pricing. It is very clear for most in this House that there is very little in the way of tangible offerings on what else they would do. I take notice that it is not just carbon pricing that can reduce emissions. I agree that it needs to be a whole, full approach with other elements as well, but we do not hear anything from them. I do not even hear the Conservatives proposing to make amendments.
It has been three years or four years since the government introduced its backstop formula. Instead of having concrete questions on how we could improve and amend that formula, they simply say they do not believe in this, without providing any alternatives. Yes, Canadians are concerned about affordability. We are as well. They also care and want a government that is serious about tackling climate change. It needs to be part of it. It cannot be one or the other; it needs to be both at the same time.
There are two more things. The Conservatives will talk about technology and working with large companies to be able to reduce emissions. That is all well and good. They do not recognize that those policies would come with costs to consumers as well. The entire idea of the federal backstop is to return revenues to households so we can incentivize individuals to make a change.
There is very little recognition from the Conservatives that their vague policy statements or lack of a plan, whatever it may be, would come with its own inherent costs. There is never a recognition from that side.
On affordability, last week this government introduced two different measures I hope all members in this House will support. They are the doubling of the GST rebate, along with dental care and housing affordability. These are measures the government is focused on. We do not want to compromise on reducing emissions. In fact, we want to help people make a transition so we can both reduce emissions and support affordability at the same time.
The Conservatives have a view that it needs to be one or the other. We have a view, on this side, that it needs to be both at the same time. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.
1522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 2:49:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the hon. member more. Energy companies are doing well and they must put their shoulders to the wheel and invest in reducing pollution.
We are working on many fronts to reduce fossil fuel emissions. We are going to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector. We are going to be introducing a clean fuel standard. We are putting a price on pollution. We are going to be eliminating inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in 2023, two years ahead of schedule.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:14:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois all agree that there should be a price on pollution. However, everything that the Liberal government does is cancelled out by other decisions it makes that wind up increasing greenhouse gas emissions. I am talking about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the Bay du Nord decision and the increased subsidies for oil companies.
How can the Liberals claim to want to reduce pollution but then approve things that increase pollution?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
