SoVote

Feb/7/23 10:48:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I want to talk about the shortcomings of the carbon tax. In April 2022, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development analyzed carbon pricing, focusing on how the program was designed. He wondered whether a significant portion of emissions was covered by carbon pricing. The conclusion was “yes” for individuals but “no” for large emitters, even though large emitters benefit from relief programs. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that. I would suggest that this aspect of the carbon tax needs to be corrected.

102 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault

Feb/7/23 10:48:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her advocacy on this issue. However, I would like to remind her that we were not in government 10 years ago. The carbon pricing system that was proposed at the time was the Harper government's, not ours. That government was in favour of imposing a carbon tax one day, against it the next, and then in favour of it again the day after that. The Conservatives are still doing the same thing today. I would also like to remind my colleague that institutions such as the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund have said that our carbon pricing system is a leading model for fighting climate change. According to these institutions, if only two-thirds of the countries in the world adopted the Canadian carbon pricing system, then every country on the planet would have already met the Paris targets.

154 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/7/23 10:49:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course we are under siege with the climate crisis. In British Columbia we experience extreme weather from fires to floods. Lives were lost and there have been damages of untold millions of dollars. What is needed is not the solution the Conservatives are proposing, to not address the climate crisis through carbon pricing. What we need is for the government to take on big oil. The minister supposedly came from the environmental sector. Why is he not taking this on and imposing a windfall tax on big oil? It made a record profit last year of $147 billion. Why are we not taxing big oil to address the climate crisis?

113 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault

Feb/7/23 10:50:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can reassure my hon. colleague that I do not supposedly come from the environmental sector. I am from the environmental sector. I have the arrest record to prove it. We have put in place a number of measures to tackle the emissions of the oil and gas sector. In fact, our emissions reduction plan presented last March is the first time in the history of this country when we have set a trajectory for emissions reduction for the oil and gas sector. We are working on a number of different elements of regulations to tackle the emissions of the oil and gas sector. We eliminated international fossil fuel subsidies just before Christmas, and we are working with the party of the member opposite on eliminating those subsidies in Canada in the first half of this year. We will be doing this two years earlier than all of our G20 partners who have committed to eliminating those fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

164 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 10:51:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed it is a privilege to rise today to participate in this important debate on carbon pricing. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time and carbon pricing is the backbone of our government's climate plan, as the minister has just said. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activity in communities across Canada. The latest science warns that, to avoid severe impacts of climate change, the most severe greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to hold the global average temperature rise at 1.5°C. We know that farming, in particular, faces these impacts. As noted in the “Canada in a Changing Climate: National Issues" report, agriculture is highly sensitive to climate and faces risks from extreme weather events. The costs of these events can be enormous, in the billions of dollars. Climate change is already increasing the likelihood and severity of droughts in Canada, and we need to act now to reduce our emissions alongside our global partners to avoid even worse impacts. On March 29, 2022, our government released the 2030 emissions reduction plan outlining how Canada will meet our 2030 target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels and the path to net-zero emissions by 2050. The plan builds on a strong foundation, starting with Canada's first-ever national climate plan in 2016 and then our strengthened plan released in 2020. Carbon pricing is central to these plans because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canadians and businesses understand that putting a price on carbon pollution spurs the development of new technologies and services that can help reduce their emissions cost-effectively, from how they heat their homes to what kind of energy they use to do so. Our government has established a globally recognized pricing system that is encouraging decarbonization across the economy while also putting money back in the pockets of the average Canadian household. Our approach is flexible. Any province or territory can design its own pricing system based on local needs, or can choose the federal pollution pricing system. The federal government sets minimum national stringency standards, called the benchmark, that all systems must meet to ensure they are comparable and effective in reducing GHG emissions. If a province decides not to put a price on carbon pollution or proposes a system that does not meet these standards, the federal system applies. On November 22, 2022, our government announced the provinces in which the federal carbon pollution pricing system will apply for the 2023 to 2030 period, as well as the funds that will be returned to households in each province that has the federal fuel charge. Again, carbon pricing systems in Canada are designed to maintain competitiveness and position Canada as a leader in the global low-carbon economy. Businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reducing emissions. They need consistent, predictable policies and strong incentives and supports to put these technologies into practice. The multi-year carbon pricing regime established by our government creates those incentives without dictating any particular approach. It lets businesses decide how best to cut their emissions. Federal and provincial carbon pricing systems for industry are designed to ensure there is a price incentive to reduce emissions, spur innovative and encourage the adoption of clean technologies while maintaining Canadian industry competitiveness vis-à-vis global competitors. The federal approach to carbon pricing is designed to maintain the consistency demanded by industry and investors while prioritizing affordability for Canadians, including farmers. Most households and jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge applies end up with more money in their pockets than what they paid. When federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to these households, eight out of 10 families actually get more money back through the climate action incentive payments than they faced in increased fuel costs. In 2023, for example, quarterly climate action incentive payments for a family of four will increase to $386 in Alberta, $264 in Manitoba and $340 in Saskatchewan. This is the prairie economy I come from, and those payments will be made quarterly. Families in rural and small communities are also eligible to receive an extra 10%. I would like to emphasize that farmers continue to have significant relief from carbon-pollution pricing under the current federal approach. While farmers are key to reaching Canada's climate targets, Canadian farmers are not required to face the challenge on their own. Emissions from livestock, which represent the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, are not priced. There is also no carbon price on the gasoline and diesel used in tractors and other farm machinery, just as fishers do not pay the price on fuel for their vessels. Greenhouse operators also get 80% relief from the fuel charge on natural gas and propane used to heat their greenhouses. Recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, our government has also established a refundable tax credit for farming businesses operating in provinces where the federal fuel charge system applies. There are also opportunities for farmers to earn revenue by reducing emissions, under provincial and federal GHG offset credit programs, which are being developed. We will be reviewing carbon pricing systems in Canada by 2026 to ensure they continue to be consistent and effective across Canada. This will provide an opportunity to take stock, together with provinces, territories, indigenous organizations and governments, to make any necessary changes in a way that maintains strong incentives and minimizes disruption. Agricultural producers are key partners in the fight against climate change and are already taking action to improve the sustainability of their operations. Our government is making other significant investments to support this. For example, we are investing $470 million in the Agricultural Climate Solutions-On-Farm Climate Action fund to help farmers adopt sustainable practices, such as cover crops, rotational grazing and fertilizer management. We are also investing $330 million to triple the funding for the agricultural clean technology program, which supports the development and purchase of more energy-efficient equipment among farmers. Climate change is a serious challenge, but it is also an opportunity. Analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates that transitioning to a low-carbon economy will generate 65 million new jobs. Canadians want to take advantage of these opportunities. Just as we are putting a price on carbon pollution, we are also making historic investments in clean technology, innovation and green infrastructure to drive growth and reduce pollution, including $9.1 billion in new investments to cut pollution and grow the economy as part of the 2030 emissions reduction plan. Canadians know the cost of inaction on climate change. They know it is enormous. This includes more severe floods, forest fires, heat waves and droughts here in Canada, and the potential for massively disrupting the climate worldwide. Canadians have been clear about what they want. They want clean air, good jobs, a healthy environment and a strong economy. That is what this government is giving Canadians.

1210 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Feb/7/23 11:00:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way talks a lot about GHG emissions. In the public accounts, we are actually studying the government's plan for greening government, which is called the greening government strategy. Part of the role set out by the Treasury Board is that the assistant deputy minister has to sign off on the integrity of the government's GHG emissions, but 75% of the ADMs refused to sign off on the integrity of the government's numbers. Guess which department also failed that integrity test? The department of Environment and Climate Change. How can the minister and his assistant, the parliamentary secretary, stand and talk about the environment when their own ADM refused to sign off on the integrity of their numbers?

126 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Feb/7/23 11:01:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all I know is that for 10 long years, the Conservatives of Stephen Harper did nothing on climate change. They cut $350 million from the environment and climate change budget. We are investing in the economy of the future, with $9.1 billion in our emissions reduction plan. This is on top of the $100 billion we already invested in climate change. We are making a difference. Our emissions are going down. Our economy is being built for the future, for our kids and grandkids. The Conservatives have no plan for climate change, no plan for affordability and certainly no plan for building the economy of the future.

110 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/7/23 11:02:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, inflation is caused by more than 20 different factors, one of which is a labour shortage. The Century Initiative, led by certain McKinsey executives, recommended encouraging people aged 55 to 74 to return to the workforce if they had retired. Pensions are fixed incomes, and pensioners are the most affected by inflation. My question is this. Was increasing pensions for only those 75 and over really just an implementation of the Century Initiative approach, which ultimately hurts those aged 65 to 74?

86 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Feb/7/23 11:03:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, one of the first things we did when we formed government was putting the age of retirement back to 65 so seniors would not be left in poverty. Indeed, in our last budget, we increased the OAS by 10% because our seniors are more vulnerable as they age, with more needs for health care and medicine. The hon. member mentioned workers. Since the topic is climate today, we are working very hard to prepare our workforce for a future that combats climate change and creates that clean economy and the good jobs of today and tomorrow.

99 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/7/23 11:04:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, said in his speech that emissions are going down. I have seen no evidence of that. We had a dip during COVID, but the expectation is that our emissions will go up. We have the worst record in the G7 since 1990. Our emissions continue to climb upward more than those of any other country in the G7. At the same time, subsidies disguised as climate action are increasing. When the Liberals throw out the numbers for how much is spent on climate action, it includes carbon capture, utilization and storage, which is a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. It helps them produce more oil by getting what they could not otherwise reach by shooting carbon dioxide down deep wells. We are seeing an increase in subsidies, where we have wasted $21 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline. As a reminder, a billion is a thousand million; it is not just a little bit more. The hon. member will remember the Prime Minister promising in the 2015 election that he would never approve this pipeline. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

192 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Feb/7/23 11:05:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her advocacy and for her friendship. We are turning the Queen Mary, as they say. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper did nothing on climate change for 10 long years. We are reversing that trend. We are investing billions of dollars in climate action and into the new economy. We have eliminated six fossil fuel subsidies and are on our way to eliminating nine. We need to use every tool in the tool box to reduce our emissions, including carbon capture.

89 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/7/23 11:06:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today—which, as everyone can imagine, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting—deserves to be defeated and deconstructed. That would allow us to point out the nuances that should be part of it, but that, not surprisingly, are completely missing from the wording of this motion. Before I focus my remarks on environmental concerns, which should still be part of our debates in 2023, I want to criticize the official opposition's approach with the amendment introduced by my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn. I would submit—

102 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/7/23 11:06:17 a.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member. I would ask hon. members who want to have conversations to have them in the lobby. The hon. member for Repentigny may continue her speech.

35 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Feb/7/23 11:07:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, using institutions such as the Bank of Canada and the parliamentary budget office to lend the motion credibility in points (i) and (ii) is misleading, to say the least. I am compelled to speak out against this kind of manipulation. At point (i), the motion states that “the Bank of Canada governor has admitted that the carbon tax contributes to inflation”. Inflation was not caused by the new tax. The tax is a necessary measure designed to change and orient the behaviours of Canadian society as a whole to achieve a net-zero future. Perhaps the official opposition needs to be reminded that Canada made a commitment to the global community to achieve net zero by 2050. There is a global economic context that gave rise to the conditions we are experiencing now. Simplifying inflation like that is irresponsible, and I think the public deserves a much better motion than this one. It goes without saying that taxes affect inflation, but any motion we put forward should be grounded, first and foremost, in the concatenation of factors and economic circumstances. One-dimensional motions like this are best avoided, but that is not what we are seeing here. The official opposition appears to be unaware that there are many sectors of the global economy that have been adversely impacted by the pandemic, and that there has been an associated domino effect. I will spare the House the details of the other factors involved, including the war in Ukraine. Point (ii) of the motion states that “the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that households will pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back”. I am not sure how they so carelessly arrived at this conclusion, because what they are really doing is using the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s words for their own ends. They skilfully cut out all the nuances necessary to understand and appreciate the results of the analysis, namely that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is focusing on household net carbon costs for 2030, the year in which the tax should reach $170. Things will change between now and then. The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzes both the fiscal impact, namely the levy of the goods and services tax, and the economic impact, meaning the lower income as a result of pricing. I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. When the Parliamentary Budget Officer considers only the fiscal impact, the vast majority of households in backstop provinces see a net gain, as they receive rebates that exceed their carbon costs. It is also important to note that, even considering the economic impact, net carbon costs have a progressive impact. Pricing affects households differently, depending on the composition of their spending on goods and services. According to one report, “high-income households, which have relatively high carbon-intensive consumption, bear a larger cost burden compared to lower income households”. It is therefore absolutely false to claim that, in the current context, households will be paying out more than they receive. That would be in the 2030 fiscal year. The Conservatives’ motion is first and foremost an attempt to eliminate the measure required in Canada, the country that, after all, still subsidizes hydrocarbons; the country where the most polluting vehicles on the planet are made and driven, according to the International Energy Agency; and the country beset, dare I say it, by a type of political schizophrenia in the fight against climate change, which results in contradictory announcements with meticulously crafted virtuous words and messages. I will agree that, with this motion, the Conservative member is taking a direction that differs from that of the government. I just presented a few truths about the current situation in Canada and summarily described the government’s approach to climate change, because, as I would remind members, Parliament has a responsibility to be transparent to voters. I am not naive, and I do not believe in miracles, but I believe that it is important to raise the issue of transparency. It is a well-known fact that the Conservative Party is first and foremost concerned about the oil and gas industry. That is essentially its whole vision. Its approach, which I would call demagogic and populist, is patently obvious. The carbon tax does not even affect the largest emitters, since the government built in safe-conducts, mitigation measures to ensure that the shock to these poor companies would not be too brutal. This bodes well for a sector with record-breaking profits, a boon for shareholders. Need I remind members that ExxonMobil, or Imperial Oil, raked in $74 billion in profits? We would not want the shock to these companies to be too brutal. This is absolutely ridiculous. The elimination of the carbon tax seeks first and foremost to help the oil and gas industry. It is the best solution to lock society into negative behaviours that hinder our fight against climate change. Since I am a proponent of transparency, I must say that I do not believe that the Conservative Party will see the value of implementing any meaningful measures whatsoever to encourage Canadians to change their behaviours and reduce their dependency on oil. I also do not believe that they will see the value of supporting public policy focusing on energy efficiency. I certainly am not expecting the Conservative Party to support the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which would have a direct impact on the very people the Conservatives seem to want to help. For example, we are proposing adjusting the increase in old age security, building social and community housing to meet current needs, improving the energy balance of hundreds of thousands of commercial buildings by fostering energy efficiency policies aimed at breaking our dependency on oil and gas, and taxing massive fortunes, even temporarily. It is our responsibility to implement measures that will ultimately change people’s behaviours. I will give the example of cigarette companies. In 2015, the British Medical Journal analyzed 100 Canadian and American studies on tobacco taxes. Findings showed that taxation was a powerful tool to reduce smoking. Thanks to the tax, people who smoked either quit or began to smoke less, and that had a positive impact on young people. Measures like this are necessary to change our behaviours, and we need to change our behaviours if we are to take up the climate challenge. The oil and gas sector has been aware of the impact of its pollution since the 1970s. The harmful effects of air pollution on human health have been widely documented. This is compounded by the impact of the growing levels of greenhouse gas emissions. We need to stop pretending that we are not dependent on oil and gas or that this dependency has no financial, economic or health repercussions. I am not talking about the benefits to oil companies, which, as we know, are considerable. Their senior executives, the insurance sector and the banks continue to allot a disproportionate share of their investment portfolios to the oil industry. I am talking about the health and environmental costs. Air pollutants such as toxic gases like nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide reduce people’s quality of life and increase the prevalence and incidence of acute and chronic disease. Since air pollution affects almost everyone on earth, it is a global public health priority. Moreover, as the World Health Organization put it, climate change is the greatest health threat of the 21st century. The stubborn refusal to link pollution to extremely serious health problems and to recognize that dependency on fossil fuels adversely affects human health and the environment is irresponsible. I would even say that it is cowardly not to make the connection. Medical and scientific researchers who study the causal links between the environment and the development of human pathologies are now planning their work on the “multimorbidity” phenomenon. We need to keep the fuel tax. We cannot give in and cancel it, which would be dangerous and get us nowhere. I never said it would be easy. It is not easy, but we have to do it. There are solutions when it comes to improving the quality of life for most people in the current environment. I would like to end my speech by saying that all we need is the political courage to implement them and find a way to strike a balance between the most pressing needs and interests. Most importantly, we have to stop repeating falsehoods in the belief they will come true, and we need to be transparent.

1460 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 11:16:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague across the way sits with me on the environment committee, and we have great discussions there. I am glad to have a discussion with her today through you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciated her pointing out the Parliamentary Budget Officer's numbers and how they are being interpreted. When we go from annual payments to Canadians to quarterly payments, the amount going out in the financial period is going to be smaller. When we look over the whole year, it is going to be the same, but at a point in time, they can say we are not returning the money to Canadians. Could the hon. member comment on how the money is getting to Canadians and Quebeckers throughout the course of the year?

129 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Feb/7/23 11:17:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the House adopted a carbon tax that sets out just such mechanisms. In our opinion, the great thing about those mechanisms is that the biggest polluters, meaning those with the biggest environmental footprint, will pay more than the most vulnerable members of our society whose environmental footprint is smaller. That is how this tax is assessed. We are pleased to note that this provides some measure of fairness for taxpayers.

72 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/7/23 11:18:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find many of the conversations around the carbon tax interesting, especially those coming from the Bloc Québécois. They have a cap-and-trade system in the province of Quebec that is quite different from that in the rest of the country. How does that member feel about a federal government that is imposing its will and its specific requirements? It seems as though the Liberals and other left-leaning parties within Canada's Parliament talk about this somehow being a market mechanism, yet it seems to me more like a bureaucratic heavy hand from the nation's capital. How does the member, who is in a party that talks often about standing up for its province's interest, reconcile a government that is imposing on, rather than collaborating with, provinces?

137 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Feb/7/23 11:19:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who also sits on the same committee as I do. There is one thing I find a bit surprising in the official opposition's position. The carbon tax is a market-based solution, and usually the official opposition supports market-based solutions rather than direct regulation. This is true of the cap-and-trade system. Every year, new money flows in from different sources. Another thing I found surprising from the official opposition is that we are talking about a lot of money. Money is important for the Conservatives. However, let us look at a few figures. The current economic cost of the health impacts of pollution represents 6% of the GDP, and that figure is already a few years old. It is from 2018, I think. People are being affected financially. They are sick and going to the hospital with kidney problems, asthma, pulmonary diseases and so on. That also has to be taken into account in the money taxpayers have to pay. All of these public health problems are a result of pollution, of industrial and oil and gas emissions, of all of the emissions that are in the air.

200 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/7/23 11:20:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk a little bit more about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who was attacking the official opposition, saying that it has no plan, that its plan is non-existent. I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that, despite the price on pollution, the Liberal government is failing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Is that not a result of all the conflicting decisions, such as Trans Mountain, Bay du Nord and oil subsidies, that are undermining the efforts of this government, which talks out of both sides of its mouth?

110 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Feb/7/23 11:21:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that I mentioned this in my speech. Indeed, when they are putting forward measures to fight greenhouse gases but are also increasing oil production in the oil sands or natural gas and investing in fossil fuels, there is something wrong. They are saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

67 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 155