SoVote

Feb/7/23 11:32:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what my colleague is saying is very interesting. Those kinds of decisions are made by the Quebec National Assembly. However, when it comes to what we do here, I invite the federal government to look to Quebec for inspiration. Quebec has been relying on green and renewable energy for a long time. Obviously, we need to do our part like every other nation in the world, but I think that Canada has better things to do. I heard my colleague say that some of the profits contribute to the social good in other areas. Wait a minute. Do we want to start looking at all of the negative effects of climate change and how they affect people's health? We are going to have to pay an increasingly higher price in the coming years. I would invite my colleague to pay attention to that.

146 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Feb/7/23 11:33:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this morning I had a great meeting with representatives from the CLC. We talked about the issues around a just transition, and they were very concerned. Right now, there is funding to assist people in retraining into more environmentally friendly jobs, however, they are very frustrated because the government has indicated that they have to quit their existing jobs before they can get this funding, which is counterintuitive to the fact that people need to continue to earn a living in a means available to them while they seek these other roles. I would like the member's feedback on that. How does she feel about being required to stop one's source of income in order to get funding for training in another area?

127 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/7/23 11:34:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, without a doubt, as the federal government transitions to a greener economy, it will need to support affected workers, families and industries. However, the government still needs to start that transition, first. Unfortunately, it is clear yet again that it has not. We are waiting for the government's plans detailing future climate action initiatives. We know that our economy will need to be broadly transformed in the coming years. However, we still have no idea how this will be accomplished. I can understand why workers, who feel uncertain about the future of their job or the industry in which they have been employed for years, are concerned. Perhaps the government needs to ensure greater transparency and predictability, and to support workers during this obviously major process. Perhaps the government could also help us better understand, too.

139 words

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

Feb/7/23 11:35:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to circle back to a point that I find particularly relevant, and that is the Liberals' fear or reluctance to go after big oil's profits. There is a double standard towards ordinary Canadians. We have pointed out that the oil companies have doubled their profits, that the government continues to hand them subsidies and that it does not dare tax them more, despite pleas from the UN Secretary-General. In my colleague's opinion, why do the Liberals not dare go there, when it is a pretty easy and obvious answer?

105 words

All Topics

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/7/23 11:35:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was getting to that in my speech. I know my colleague has already mentioned several numbers. The Canadian company Cenovus Energy posted net earnings of $2.4 billion in July, which is more than 10 times its earnings for the most recent quarter last year. The same goes for Suncor, which is making huge profits. I do wonder why the government refuses to go there. What we have seen so far is that the government is struggling to make tough decisions, struggling to go up against industries that are putting enormous pressure on the government. Why is the government holding back from making those tough decisions? It is because it knows that it will have the NDP's support no matter what it does. Why bother wading into difficult situations? The government is comfortable in its partnership with the NDP, which backs up every major decision it makes. That is my answer to my colleague's question.

163 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Feb/7/23 11:37:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak, once again, on the important topic of climate change. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, I think we have had seven motions on the carbon tax and not a single one that talks about the problem of climate change. We know that even if we had stabilized climate change in 2015, the costs already would have taken $25 billion off of GDP growth in Canada. Therefore, the economic costs of not acting on climate change are quite large. We can talk about economic costs all day long, but we also need to talk about other direct costs like fires and floods. We need to talk about health care costs, increased lung problems, asthma problems. We need to talk about the results of fires with respect to smoke, and drinking water quality, as toxins are released into the atmosphere and end up in our drinking water. In all those things, we also need to talk about the actual losses suffered by families and individuals. We had a huge heat dome in British Columbia and across western Canada in 2021. In the week from June 25 to July 1 of 2021, the B.C. coroner's office estimated that there were 619 heat-related deaths, 619 families losing loved ones as a result of an event, which the Columbia Climate School of Columbia University studied very carefully and laid squarely at the feet of climate change. It said that there were two factors that caused that heat dome. One was the disruption of the jet stream and the other was the warming of oceans and of the soil. Instead of expecting something like a heat dome once every 100 or 200 years, the Columbia Climate School at Columbia University now says we need to expect those kinds of events once every 10 years. During that week, the village of Lytton set a new record for a temperature in Canada, 49.6°C. The next day, after setting that record, a wildfire swept through the town, killing two people and destroying the entire town of Lytton. More than 200 homes were lost. We can talk about large numbers in climate change, but when we actually look at what happens to individuals, to families and to communities and what will happen increasingly often as climate change proceeds, it seems misdirected to spend all our time talking about a carbon tax, misdirected for two very good reasons. One is, again, the fact that the larger impacts of climate change will cost far more than any climate-related carbon tax. I have not even talked about things like the drop in agricultural yields and the loss of fisheries that are coming up, all of these things we see on the horizon as a result of the climate change. I forgot to say at the beginning, Madam Speaker. I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East, so I apologize for that. When we are talking about the Conservative motion today, the Conservatives continue to repeat and bring back their slogan, and I hesitate to repeat it myself, which has something to do with something tripling. In fact, we know that nothing has actually tripled. In fact, we know that where families will face increasing costs directly through fires and heat-related costs, they will also face it in increased insurance premiums for their home insurance, as insurance companies attempt to recover their losses from these climate disasters. In fact, if we look at the increase in the carbon tax, which is designed to reduce our emissions and has been proven as one of the most effective ways to do so, on April 1 of this year, the tax will increase from $50 per tonne to $65 per tonne, and I do not see any system of math where that is a tripling. When we look at the increase of the tax on a litre of gas, it goes from 11¢ a litre to 14¢ a litre. Again, there is no tripling there. Also, that is way less than the inflated profits that the oil companies have been squeezing out of all of us during this climate crisis. Focusing on the carbon tax seems misdirected at best, especially when over half the households in Canada are not affected by the carbon tax when it comes to things like home heating. In British Columbia, we have a different scheme. Therefore, taking the carbon tax off home heating would nothing to relieve costs for British Columbians or Quebeckers, who also have a different scheme. I will politely call this a sleight of hand with figures. We know right now that eight out of 10 households get more back on their rebates than they pay in carbon tax. The Conservatives like to cite a parliamentary budget office report, which talks about 2030 and about estimates of what might happen in seven to eight years from now. Again, speaking about tripling and using figures like those being used here is at best inaccurate. What has the NDP said about things like home heating costs? At this time of inflation that is certainly a great concern. I remember that one of the times this motion came forward we asked the Conservatives to accept an amendment to their motion to support removing the GST off home heating for every household in Canada and they refused. They were so focused on the carbon tax that they refused a measure that would have helped every Canadian household meet both the costs, specifically of home heating, and the generalized squeeze that they were finding on their incomes and on their ability to make ends meet at the end of the month. In his opening speech on this motion today, the Leader of the Opposition talked about nuclear power. I have heard some other members in the House, including some on the government side, talking about nuclear power as if it somehow provides some kind of solution to climate change. The member for Carleton said that it would be a good way to combat emissions. Let us take a look at that backward-looking, rear view of the world. Nuclear power is far too expensive and far too slow to provide any solutions to our emissions crisis at this time. We need to reduce emissions right now. The average planning time to construct a new nuclear facility is over 10 years. That is from start to finish. We know when construction delays are factored in that the actual time for a new nuclear plant to come online around the world now is about 15 years. That is way too late to address the climate crisis we are in now. Let us say we ignore that and nuclear power were to go ahead. What would it cost to build nuclear power as opposed to renewables? If we take the all-in costs right now, the best figures I could find for solar and wind power, including the cost of storage and the cost of the networks that must be built, is about $2,000 per kilowatt hour of production for renewables. That has dropped 69% over the last decade. Technology is improving and with economies of scale, the cost of renewables continue to drop each and every year. Over the past decade, nuclear costs in contrast increased 25% in that same period. There is no indication that those costs will drop any time in the future. If we are talking about large-scale nuclear power projects, the costs are estimated at over $10,000 per kilowatt hour. That is five times the cost of renewables. That is five times as much energy one could produce for the same investment from renewables over nuclear, and of course it could be done now instead of in 10 to 15 years. If we are talking about what some people like to talk about, the new technology of nuclear, which is small-scale nuclear reactors, the cost for small-scale reactors is estimated at $16,000 per kilowatt hour. That is 16% more than a large-scale project and eight times mores than renewables. Therefore, by any stretch of the imagination and by any measure we want to use, it is foolish to talk about nuclear energy as a solution to our climate crisis. Instead, we need to be talking about renewables. The other part, which I have been interested in ever since I became a member of Parliament, is that these jobs in renewable energy use many of the same skills that workers have in the current energy industry in places like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. We need to focus on investment in those renewables and investment in creating those well family supporting jobs in renewable energy. We cannot really ask ordinary working families to pay the cost of this transition with their jobs and with their houses. We have to ensure that those new jobs in renewable energy, those sustainable jobs, will be in place for workers as we head into a future where hopefully we can avoid the climate disaster that is on the horizon.

1530 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 11:47:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, British Columbia has participated in the global carbon market for a number of years now and has had the economic benefit of that as well as some climate change benefits, as the member has mentioned, with new industries coming to British Columbia. I have seen a lot of EV adaptation in British Columbia compared to places that do not have participation in the carbon market. The member also mentioned health benefits. As someone who has asthma, I know that having clean air is very important to being able to breathe everyday. Could the hon. member talk about what it means to be in the carbon market versus sitting on the sidelines of the carbon market, as this opposition day motion would ask us to do?

127 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Feb/7/23 11:47:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member gets to the real heart of the matter. We can talk about what might happen in the future, but we know what we can do about this now. By being in the carbon market, we can provide the right signals in the economy. However, I am a bit of a skeptic about how fast that carbon market would bring about the changes we need. What I would like to see is large-scale investment right now in renewable energy projects, starting in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, where the need to replace jobs right away for workers who face job losses as we go forward is most acute.

119 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Feb/7/23 11:48:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech somewhat factually challenged on many metrics, such as the drop in agricultural yields. The method the government is using to try to curb carbon emissions in agriculture is going to reduce yields by 30%. That is food for our country and the world that the government is designing out by manipulating the process so we produce less food in Canada. I will ask the member about the cost of renewable energy, which he noted. He put down nuclear energy as an option, which is actually a very low-cost option for Canadians. Renewable energy, by itself, is extremely expensive and has continued to escalate costs for Canadians, whose electricity bills are going through the roof. Can the member tell us how this is actually beneficial to Canadians when their electricity bills are going to quadruple with the unreliable power that will be provided by the renewables he preaches about?

157 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Feb/7/23 11:49:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my most charitable comment is that it is looking in the rear-view mirror to say that renewables are extremely expensive and unreliable. This does not take into account the real world of renewable energy in this day and age, where costs are dropping and have continued to drop substantially over the last 10 years. We will see very soon that many economies around the world will be shifting completely to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels, and Canada needs to get on that bandwagon.

88 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Feb/7/23 11:50:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the NDP's consistent attempts to establish a baseline for policies in Canada. I would like him to share his thoughts on the federal government's attitude toward everything Quebec has been doing for decades to make its energy supply almost 100% clean, even though past premiers and ministers had to turn to Wall Street for funding because the Canadian government did not want to help them. What does my colleague think of that attitude toward Quebec, considering we are leading the environmental charge in Canada? I would like him to comment on that.

105 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Feb/7/23 11:50:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think there is a point on which we can agree: Whenever we see innovative attempts to move forward in the attack on climate change, like many of those we have seen in Quebec, the federal government needs to get on board and support them as quickly as it can.

52 words

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

Feb/7/23 11:51:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke from the bottom of my heart for actually pointing out that nuclear makes no sense as a climate solution. Why is it, then, so heavily promoted? I would like to pull back the corporate veil. The big winner in this is SNC-Lavalin, as the projects are controlled by SNC-Lavalin. SNC-Lavalin bought AECL for $15 million in the Harper years and has its fingers in every pie, but it is will hidden. I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on that.

101 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Feb/7/23 11:51:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think we can emphasize enough that going down the path of nuclear power was wrong in the beginning and is extremely wrong now given the costs. That is without even talking about the production of nuclear waste that would last forever. We need to pay attention to the corporate interests that are promoting the idea of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. It is no solution. It is expensive, and it is dangerous.

80 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/7/23 11:52:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I happy to enter this debate today. There is no question that people are struggling to pay for the rising cost of living on groceries, housing and energy. Just name it and they are struggling, while billionaires and big corporations are getting richer than ever. Big oil companies and CEOs are getting wealthier off the backs of Canadians, who are struggling with the rising cost of living and dealing with the devastating consequences of extreme weather caused by the climate crisis. B.C., my home province, is still trying to recover from its devastating wildfire and floods. In 2021, there were 1,600 fires in British Columbia, and together they burned down 8,700 square kilometres of land. The summer of 2021 saw the village of Lytton burn to the ground, with the cost estimated at $78 million. That is not to mention the emotional trauma and damage this has done to the community and individuals who suffered this loss. Then came the floods in November 2021, when the communities of Merritt, Princeton and Abbotsford in southern British Columbia were flooded, with an estimated cost of $450 million in damages. Again, that is not to mention the emotional trauma that people are still struggling with. Of course, B.C. is not alone in this experience of extreme weather. This is happening across the globe. It is happening right here in Canada from coast to coast to coast. I will not go on to list all the examples, as we all know them and have spoken about them in this House. However, what is clear is that urgent action is needed to address the climate crisis. The Conservatives are choosing to close their eyes and turn a blind eye to this reality. To be clear, carbon pricing is revenue-neutral, so all revenues are returned to the province or territory in which they are generated. Households receive 90% of revenues raised from the fuel charge through a direct rebate, and these rebates are paid back quarterly in my home province of British Columbia. There is also an additional supplement available to people who live in small and rural communities. The PBO has estimated that eight out of 10 households will receive more back in rebates than they pay in fuel charges. The Conservatives' claim that 60% of households incur a net loss is based on the PBO's estimates of the economic impact of federal carbon pricing in 2030. That is seven years from now, just to be clear and to put that on the record. Those estimates incorporate a projected loss in economic efficiency from carbon pricing and do not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of the climate crisis. I just put on the record the cost to British Columbia when it experienced the floods and wildfires. That has not been accounted for. Looking at the direct fiscal impact only, the same PBO report found, “For the vast majority of households in the backstop provinces, their rebates exceed their carbon costs.” The net benefits of the federal carbon pricing system are broadly progressive by income group. Households with the lowest incomes receive the largest net transfers, and only the wealthiest households pay more than they get back in rebates. Why let the facts get in the way of the rhetoric? Why let the facts get in the way of the Conservatives' attempt to fundraise for their own political gain at the expense of the climate crisis? Instead of focusing on real solutions, they choose to engage in cheap politics. That much is clear. The Conservatives said no to the NDP's proposal to exempt the GST on home heating. That would have made a real difference in support of everyday Canadians who are struggling to pay their energy costs. However, the Conservatives said no to that and rejected it. That is the truth. They also refuse to go after the biggest polluters and refuse to go after the ultrarich. When the New Democrats called for a tax on the excess profits of huge corporations to make life more affordable, the Conservatives and the Liberals voted no to making big oil companies pay what they owe to help families cope with the high costs of living. They refused to go after big oil, which is making record profits to the tune of $147 billion in profit last year. The Conservatives have selected to give them a free pass instead. Under Canada's carbon pricing system, the biggest polluters pay the lowest carbon tax rate. Loopholes allow for oil and gas companies to only pay a tiny portion of the costs for their pollution. In fact, 80% to 90% of emissions are exempt. Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price. These loopholes need to be closed so that big oil pays what it owes for its pollution. More than that, the UN Secretary-General said, “Polluters must pay”, and called on countries to implement a windfall profit tax on fossil fuel companies. The Conservative government in the U.K. has already put a 25% windfall tax on oil and gas profits. The EU has announced plans for a tax on windfall profits. Spain, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria have all implemented a similar levy, yet both the Liberals and the Conservatives oppose making big oil companies and the ultrarich pay their fair share. The NDP has a very different perspective. This corporate greed has to stop. Families are struggling, and one way to help them tackle the high cost of living is to put in a windfall tax on excess profits for the ultrawealthy. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives need to step up and support the people across this country. They have voted against the NDP's motion on an excess profit tax for the ultrarich to help struggling families. It makes no sense. The federal carbon pricing system, by the way, only applies to provinces and territories that do not put a price on pollution or do not meet the federal standards. Across the country, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and New Brunswick all have their own carbon pricing solutions that they have already put in place. That means that what the Conservatives are talking about with their rhetoric would not actually help those provinces and territories. The Leader of the Opposition claims that he is there for the working people, the working class, and we heard it today in his speech. What do they want? They want the government and the Conservatives to support the fight against greedflation. They want that action. They want to see a windfall tax or an excessive profiteering tax for the ultrawealthy CEOs. They want real solutions, not just slogans. Divisive rhetoric and fearmongering will not help with the struggles people face every day. I would be remiss if I did not point out the offensive comment that came from the leader of the Conservatives. He called my riding “hell on earth”. It is despicable that he would use that language to describe any riding in this country. Of course, our community is struggling; we are struggling. However, we have people in our community who are working every single day and putting their lives on the line to support people in the community. For the leader of the Conservatives to call my riding hell on earth is despicable, and he needs to apologize.

1251 words

All Topics

Mr. Fraser Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)

Feb/7/23 12:02:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated numerous times in this House that the government is putting a price on pollution. Actually, the NDP-Liberal government is putting a price on people, not pollution. Why does this member punish the people of this nation with bad policy instead of supporting technology that would reduce emissions and actually make a difference?

60 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Feb/7/23 12:03:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first off, the member is wrong. There is no coalition government. The NDP is not part of the Liberals. We have a supply and confidence agreement, but we do not sit in cabinet. We are not there at that table. If it were an NDP government, we would have different policies; that is for sure. On the issue around the climate crisis, I think the member did not hear what I said. I invite him to come to British Columbia to see the aftermath of the fires and floods and what is going on. Conservatives can continue to be climate deniers or they can step up and actually make the wealthy pay and get the big oil and gas companies to pay their fair share so we can really fight the climate crisis and support Canadians in their everyday struggles.

142 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/7/23 12:04:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, I certainly admire the member's passion for putting a price on pollution. One will not hear an objection from this side of the House; it is the only way to go. If I am quoting her right, she said “polluters must pay”, yet I cannot help but reflect on the fact that the NDP has been supportive and plans to vote in favour of Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill would specifically remove a price on pollution, or the carbon tax, from certain sectors. If the member is such a huge fan of pricing pollution, why would she vote in favour of Bill C-234?

119 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Feb/7/23 12:05:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, to correct the member, if he actually paid attention to my speech, he would have heard me say that I was actually quoting the UN Secretary-General. That said, we do believe we need to tackle the climate crisis. There is no question about it. We have been calling on the government to take exactly those actions and make the biggest polluters pay their fair share, yet the Liberals continue to exempt the oil and gas companies. In fact, they would go as far as to provide them with a subsidy so they do not have to pay their fair share. Through a supply and confidence agreement, we are pushing the Liberals every step of the way to make them step up. That is why we are seeing a tiny bit of action on the subsidy aspect. To the member's final comment regarding the bill, when there are no alternatives, we need to provide alternatives to address the climate crisis. That is why we did what we did on that bill.

174 words

All Topics

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

Feb/7/23 12:06:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for bringing us back to what happened there in the summer of 2021. I do not think even colleagues who think they know about it really do. Over 619 people died in four days from a heat dome. In the same year, we had the atmospheric rivers. I know the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke spoke to this too, but the temperature record hit 50°C at its peak; this was in the backyard of my husband's family farm. My stepdaughter, who is in her mid-30s, nearly died. We are still not preparing. We are still not understanding. In the context of my friend from Vancouver East's riding, people who are homeless were unable to get to cooling shelters because none were set up. They were kept out of parks, where they went for shade, for fear they might set up encampments. Again, the equity issues, the intersectional issues of the climate crisis are ignored in pointless debates about a carbon tax, which is a necessary but completely insufficient way of addressing the climate emergency.

194 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 155