SoVote

Feb/7/23 10:35:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member actually highlights how effective the slogan is. He repeated it twice, so I thank him for doing that. When it comes to what the Conservatives are proposing, which is to cut the carbon tax, not only would it help Quebec, Quebeckers, Quebec businesses, the people of Quebec and the farmers, but it would help everyone. It would help all Canadians across this country to lower their costs. It is just too bad that the Bloc continuously helps to prop up the government and make things more expensive in this country. The Bloc members need to stand with Conservatives and with Canadians, cut the tax, axe the carbon tax and help Canadians keep more in their pockets.

120 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/7/23 10:35:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure about the member, but in the riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, the two highest impacts on people's budgets are housing and child care. The NDP has a solution on child care, and it also has a solution on housing. What I do not see is the Conservative Party supporting initiatives around child care to make it more affordable, and it certainly has fuelled the market lens and the market-driven housing problem that we have in this country. If we are talking today about affordability, are the Conservatives going to support the child care bill? What more can be done to make more affordable housing in this country?

116 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Feb/7/23 10:36:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives did support the child care motion that was passed in the House just recently. The problem is that the Liberal Party and the NDP ideologies do not match up with everyday Canadians' with respect to choice, freedom and letting people keep more in their pockets so they can make their own choices and thrive in this country. I come from the home-building industry. We see that the problem today is the supply of homes. There are just not enough. There is too much red tape, and the government is not helping. It needs to get out of the way. It needs to stop being a gatekeeper and let more homes be built here in this country. In the meantime, the Liberals need to help lower the taxes on Canadians so that Canadians can actually have a chance. There are many people here who cannot afford to put away dollar for dollar and save up to have a down payment for a home today, yet the Liberal-NDP government continues to take more out of the pockets—

182 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/7/23 10:37:36 a.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

10 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 10:37:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South. I am pleased to take part in today's debate. I would like to say that the Conservatives introduced an opposition day motion to talk about the importance of fighting climate change, but they are not quite there yet. The Conservative Party has had a new leader for 150 days already and yet it still does not have a plan to tackle climate change. It is anybody's guess as to when its plan will be ready. Last time, it took the Conservative Party nearly a year after choosing its previous leader to come up with a plan to fight climate change. As many members know already, Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Our 2030 emissions reduction plan tabled last March lays out how we will get there. Pollution pricing is the backbone of our climate strategy. It is foundational, because it has been proven to work all over the world, not only to drive down carbon emissions but also to raise innovation and energy efficiency, and to create jobs in the emerging green economy. It also supports and amplifies every other climate measure, and creates an incentive to invest in low-carbon solutions across the economy. Conservatives used to know this. In fact, carbon pricing is the kind of market-based mechanism that earlier generations of fiscal Conservative thinkers used to embrace. Many in the Conservative Party, including the Leader of the Opposition's own communication director, used to support carbon pricing, or at least he did until he started working for the Conservative Party. Today's Conservatives are penny-wise and pound foolish. They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada. Today we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. The fact is that carbon pricing is central to our climate plan, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and the cost of doing nothing is staggering. When we introduced carbon pricing in 2019, we were not only putting a price on pollution, but we were also putting in place the building blocks for the future we know we need for ourselves, for our kids and for our grandkids. Our approach has always been based on a set of ambitious but realistic standards for carbon pricing, the federal reference that gives the provinces and territories the flexibility to implement their own carbon pricing system. Setting the trajectory until 2030 provides certainty for Canadians and the investor community and will be transformative by creating incentives for the new technologies we need, for both our industry and society. We have just come to an agreement with all the provinces and territories on increasing carbon pricing. I will reiterate that we negotiated a more ambitious price on pollution with each province and all the territories for the coming years. I want to impress on the House just how foundational this price trajectory is to the success of Canadians' low-carbon economy and the jobs that will come with it. Last fall, at COP27 in Egypt, I spoke with Brian Vaasjo of Capital Power, one of Canada's largest private sector electricity producers. Brian told me that pricing pollution and providing certainty and long-term predictability in pricing are key to unlocking investment on some very good projects, including a $2-billion carbon capture electricity project that would not go ahead without it. Susannah Pierce, president and country chair at Shell Canada, noted that Shell's big investment will not make sense without carbon pricing in Canada, and that regulatory certainty is the key to good business decisions. The Conservatives have now abandoned the energy investors and energy companies, but they are pretending to be on the side of those facing energy poverty. Canadians have been riding the roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years, and Conservatives said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins from oil and gas producers. Instead, they make up a lot of misleading claims about the price on pollution. Here are the facts. About two-thirds of the increase in what Canadians are paying at the pump is due to crude oil prices going up, largely because of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. Another 25% of the price is the result of everything from provincial taxes to refining margins, which have increased by more than 110% in the last two years. That means, all told, 95% of the price of gas has nothing to do with the price on pollution. In fact, the price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of Canadians, and it remains one of the best ways to fight climate change and keep our air clean. Stakeholders across the country have told us that consistency and predictability are essential to promote investment in a low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce this pollution. They need incentives and clear support to commercialize and implement these technologies. Carbon pricing creates incentives without dictating a particular approach. It lets businesses decide on the best way to reduce their pollution. What is most galling are the lies of omission and the things left unsaid, like those quarterly climate action incentive payments that go directly to Canadian households in backstop provinces every three months. For the first time, households in three Atlantic provinces will receive quarterly climate action incentive payments totalling hundreds of dollars a year. The first rebate payment will come in July, which is the same month that the fuel charge will take effect for the first time. The vast majority of households will never be out of pocket, with lower- and middle-income families benefiting the most. Starting next July, a family of four in Nova Scotia will receive a climate action incentive payment of $248 every three months. In Prince Edward Island, it will be $240 per quarter. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be $328 every quarter. For an Ontario family of four, the quarterly payment will be $244 starting in April. In Manitoba, next year's quarterly payment will be $264 every quarter. In Saskatchewan, it will be $340. In Alberta, a family of four will receive $386 four times a year. In total, 90% of the proceeds from the fuel charges are returned directly to Canadian households through the climate action incentive payments. The rest will be returned to businesses, farmers and indigenous peoples through various federal and provincial programs. I want to say two things about affordability. First, I know how concerned Canadians are about household budgets in these inflationary times. I understand, and I share each and every concern that Canadians have. That is why we are making sure that rebate payments go directly to households every three months, and eight out of 10 get more than they paid. Equally important is the hard fact that if nothing is done about climate change, it will cost us far more. The parliamentary budget office recently estimated the cost to the Canadian economy of $25 billion per year by 2025 if we go about business as usual. The status quo is not an option. Some may argue that we can simply go back in time and pretend that climate change does not exist. They would probably have better luck buying cryptocurrency. Our goal is to keep life affordable while developing a clean economy, good jobs and safe communities. A stable, affordable and predictable price on pollution is a key component of that.

1297 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Feb/7/23 10:46:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the minister, as well as the Liberals, like to pretend that energy prices, gas prices in particular, are like the weather. They are not responsible for it. They blame Russia. They blame everything else. I am going to give the minister an example and ask him to respond to it. My riding of New Brunswick Southwest is next to the state of Maine. Almost every day, the price of gasoline is 50¢ different. It is cheaper in Maine than it is in New Brunswick. All the gasoline comes from the refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, so it is not like the Americans are producing cheaper gas from another source. The difference is all tax, and every year that gap is growing because of the Liberal carbon tax. The minister needs to own up to it. The carbon tax is meant to make prices higher, and it is working.

152 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault

Feb/7/23 10:47:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here we have another clear example of misinformation that is being spread in the House, and it is somewhat ironic that it is coming from this member. He supported his province in implementing the federal backstop system on carbon pricing, and he mentioned it would mean that people would get money in their pockets. I do not know who coerced him to make this intervention in the House this morning, because just a few months ago he was in favour of carbon pricing in his home province of New Brunswick.

92 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 155