44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/1/23 10:02:56 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to table a petition on behalf of hundreds of workers at Canada's ports.
The petitioners note the essential nature of the roles of port workers in the operation of Canada's supply chain, the impact of decision-making at Canada's ports on their lives and, most importantly, the essential experience and knowledge they bring to the operation of Canada's ports. The petitioners call upon the government to amend the Canada Marine Act to ensure that port workers are represented on the boards of directors of Canada's port authorities.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:28:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to read a brief passage to my friend from Mégantic—L'Érable. It states:
We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline (and other liquid fuels) we burn, turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Our improvements will include:
Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia’s policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels....
That is from the 2021 Conservative election platform, a platform that my friend from Mégantic—L'Érable ran under. Now the member is saying the exact opposite, and I am wondering if somehow we can harness this Conservative policy weather vane as a source of renewable energy. What are his thoughts?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:58:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the points that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made in his report, when it comes to the clean fuel regulations, is that it is a policy that is regressive for Canadian households. Lower-income households pay a greater proportion of their income to meet the requirements of this policy.
Affordability, of course, is a concern for everyone in this House. Why did the government choose not to put affordability measures in place in relation, specifically, to the clean-fuel regulation?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 11:28:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative motion seems to conflate two different concepts in policy: taxes and regulations. I cannot think of why my hon. colleagues on the Conservative side would want to try to confuse Canadians, and I cannot imagine that they do not know the difference between taxes and regulations, so I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why the Conservatives seem intent on confusing these two concepts.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 11:59:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion.
I am struck by the fact that we are here, yet again, debating a Conservative motion to cancel a climate policy. It is like Groundhog Day, except in this case, every time the Conservative groundhogs poke their heads out of the ground, the weather is hotter, the wildfires are more severe and the floods are more frequent. This is taking place, of course, against the backdrop that my friend from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie described very eloquently. In Nova Scotia, wildfires are raging. In Alberta, there are still 61 wildfires. I checked the portal last night to see how many there are. To date this year, they have had 555 wildfires in that province, and it is only June.
This debate is taking place against the backdrop of oil and gas corporations raking in eyewatering profits, historic profits, profits so great that the CEO of Shell, one of the biggest oil and gas companies in the world, said that we should tax them. Of course, these profits drive inflation and make life more expensive for average Canadians.
This is the backdrop against which we are having today's debate, yet on Monday I listened to a Conservative colleague from Red Deer, a very decent guy, talk about how climate change is not real, how CO2 is not a problem, how the people who warned us about things like acid rain in the seventies and eighties were snake oil salesmen, and how, without climate change, we would not have rivers. This is the kind of discussion we hear coming from the party that has put forward the motion before us today.
This particular Groundhog Day, the Conservatives' target is something called the clean fuel regulation, a regulation that the government has proposed to reduce the carbon intensity of liquid fuels, including gasoline and diesel. The fuel regulations account for 26 million tonnes of greenhouse gas reductions in the government's emission reduction plan, which, putting aside the merits of the actual policy, indicates that it is being called on to do some heavy lifting in reaching the targets. We know how much difficulty previous Liberal governments have had in meeting their targets.
I think that Canadians should look at this motion before us with some skepticism. I will lay out a couple of reasons why.
The first one is the language that the motion uses. I think we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to communicate clearly and accurately to the people who we represent when we talk about policy, particularly policy that is so important and that can be complex. The Conservatives are calling a regulation a tax, knowing full well that regulations and taxes are different things. We know this. If we call everything the same thing, it does not work. That is the purpose of language, to differentiate between different kinds of things.
I cannot imagine why they would be doing this. The only two reasons I can come up with is, first, they don't know the difference between a regulation and a tax. That cannot be the case because I know that many of my hon. colleagues are intelligent and educated people, so that cannot be why. What could the other reason be? Of course in this place it is against the Standing Orders to intentionally mislead the House, so that cannot be the reason. I cannot think of why they would want to conflate two very different kinds of policies: taxes and regulations.
Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you know what that third reason might be.
The second reason I think that Canadians should be very concerned about the motion in front of us is because the party proposing it, the party calling for this policy of the Liberal government to be cancelled, to be axed, has not provided an alternative. This is a pattern that we see. We just heard it from our colleague down the way. They say, “Oh, no, this plan doesn't work. We need a real, effective plan.” They never bring forward that real, effective plan so we can evaluate it against the plan that the government has put forward.
Granted, the government's plan has many shortcomings. It should be evaluated and it should be costed out, but the official opposition never puts forward a plan that can be costed out or evaluated. In fact, the one time that it brought forward a climate plan that could be evaluated, it contained a lot of the same policies the Liberal government has put forward. I would love to read some of those. I am going to get to that a little later in my speech.
Of course, this motion rests heavily on and draws heavily from a recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and the many challenges with that report have been well documented in the media and by climate policy experts. I wish that the PBO had provided an explanation as to why he chose the highest possible cost estimate, the uppermost bound, as the basis for his estimations of cost. The $531 per household is not the expected cost. It is the maximum cost. Of course, there are many things that could prevent that maximum cost from being reached. For instance, the update of electric vehicles could be faster than expected or the biofuel industry could advance technology and innovate at a greater pace. All of these things are not only possible, but likely.
Most important is that the PBO's report was silent on the cost of inaction. There is something called “the social cost of carbon”, which in 2020 was estimated by our public service as being $54 a tonne. We cannot compare the costs of the proposal in front of us to cancel a climate policy against the option of no action at all. That is not a fair comparison. We are talking about an existential threat, a threat that everyone in the House has acknowledged in this debate and previous debates. Therefore, we can only compare the clean fuel regulations the government has proposed against alternative policies, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in a footnote, states very clearly that it is outside the scope of his work to compare the clean fuels regulations to other alternative policies that may achieve a similar end.
Finally, the PBO has not explained in adequate detail what other scenarios may take place. We know there is great uncertainty about the path forward when it comes to climate action and how this policy interacts with other policies. There is a great amount of uncertainty, and overly simplistic conclusions, such as the one we have received, do not serve the public interest.
It is surprising, and this has been raised previously in this debate, that the Conservatives do not like market-based mechanisms because, of course, that is the party that worships at the altar of the almighty market, yet the two policies they criticize the most are both market-based mechanisms that leverage the power of markets to find the most efficient and the least-cost way to reduce emissions. This is what economists say is the path forward.
Personally, I am agnostic. What I want to see are effective policies that drive down climate pollution and give our kids a chance at a decent, stable future. However, we do not hear policies like that coming from the Conservative Party. All we hear is criticisms of the policies that have been put forward by so many experts.
I was looking at the 2021 Conservative election platform, and I want to read members a passage because I find it quite interesting. It says in that platform:
We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline...we burn, turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Boy, that sounds very familiar. It goes on to read:
Our improvements will include:
Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia’s policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels....
The policy from the government reduces the carbon intensity by 15%, yet in the last election, the Conservatives were proposing the same policy, but with a 20% reduction. Therefore, I am not sure how we get this weather vane of Conservative policy. As I proposed before, maybe that weather vane itself could be a source of renewable energy that could drive down emissions. If it were not for all the hot air, that might be an opportunity.
I am perplexed. If not these policies, then which ones? When are the Conservatives going to put forward a plan? Having no plan is not an option at this juncture.
These aspects should concern all Canadians, and we do need to focus on affordability, but we need to have a serious debate in the House about serious matters. I am deeply troubled by the fact that the Conservative Party continues to conflate basic concepts to confuse Canadians on a topic that has so much import for our country and our world.
1526 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:10:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Skeena—Bulkley Valley is a beautiful spot. It is just to the west of Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.
On that topic, I want to talk a little bit about my colleague's riding. My colleague represents Prince George, an excellent community full of wonderful people, which has seen a number of investments that relate very directly to the clean fuel regulations his party is attacking in this motion, including a major potential investment by Canfor in a biofuel facility in Prince George, which would employ hundreds of people and create millions of dollars of economic development. I wonder what that company thinks, because the clean fuel regulations are driving the innovation that it is proposing in his community.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:12:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a very good point. I took note of his motion. He will not be surprised to learn that I support increasing the protection of old-growth forests in British Columbia and around the world, because of course, they are important sources of biodiversity and play an important role in protecting our climate.
On the topic of biodiversity, though, there is an important tie-in to the clean fuel regulation that we are debating today, which is that, if we rapidly increase the production of biofuels, we need to ensure that safeguards are in place so it does not impact biodiversity, especially when we are using wood products to create those fuels, and so it does not impact food security when we are using farmland to create—
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:14:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that attempts to confuse or conflate different issues and different topics is not helpful in the context of such an important debate.
When it comes to the forest industry, we need to ensure that our forest practices are truly renewable. It is an industry that my family has worked in for years and years. If done properly, and if practised sustainably, it can be a renewable resource that actually helps our climate.
We are not there yet. We need to get there.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:28:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was just on Wikipedia, and I note that my friend from Newfoundland and Labrador ran for the first time, winning by a narrow margin, in the 2021 election on a platform that included the following, and I will just read it:
We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline...turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard [and]
Our improvements will include:
Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia’s policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels...
That member just ran less than two years ago on a policy that sounds to my ear an awful lot like the policy he would be cancelling with the motion before us. Can he explain the difference?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals like to talk about heat pumps, so I will ask a heat pump question. By my estimation and the numbers I have seen from experts, Canada needs about 500,000 additional heat pumps by 2030 to meet its target. How many heat pumps did the Liberals incentivize under the greener homes program in the two years since it was launched? It was 438. I did the math, and, by my calculation, it is going to take 1,000 years at that pace to hit their 2030 target.
Can the parliamentary secretary square the math for me and tell me whether Canadians are going to have to wait 1,000 years to hit the target?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the last time the Conservative Party had a costed and modelled climate plan, it included both a price on carbon and a low-carbon fuel standard, two policies they are now saying they would not proceed with. My question to the member is this: When is the Conservative Party going to release a new modelled climate plan that replaces those policies with policies she claims are going to be effective?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Taylor Bachrach: Madam Speaker, I cannot hear if they are—
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:41:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe I will start again so I can clearly articulate the question.
Given that just two years ago the Conservatives ran on a platform that included carbon pricing and a clean fuel standard, what do they intend to come forward with that would replace those, which just two years ago they said were adequate policies? I do not understand.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
