SoVote

Apr/9/24 4:24:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member opposite did not hear or was not paying attention, but I did highlight, in my speech, the testimony of the PBO, who stated, “once you factor in the rebate and also the economic impacts...the majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.” Stats Canada figures prove that without the carbon tax applied to home heating, the inflation rate would decline. I have a couple of questions. They hired over 400 employees to administer the plan at a cost of $200 million. Do we know how many trees that would have planted? I would also like to know this from the hon. members across the way. I spent the day, on New Year's Eve, volunteering at the food bank. I saw, first-hand, the lineup of people who were struggling and embarrassed but needed to get to the food bank to support their families so that they could sit down to a half-decent New Year's Eve dinner. Where were they?

177 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Apr/9/24 4:25:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question will be simple. Yes, it is important that every Canadian premier feels not only heard but also listened to. However, is it really up to the House of Commons to order anyone, including the provincial premiers, to sit down with the Prime Minister of Canada? Should it not be up to the premiers themselves to request this meeting instead of being considered as this Parliament's puppets? They are not puppets. The premiers deserve to be treated with respect, to be listened to and, most importantly, to have leadership when it comes to their own needs.

100 words

Meeting

Mrs. Anna Roberts

Apr/9/24 4:26:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that we keep hearing, over and over again, that the current government wants to work with premiers. The premiers want to work with the government. They want to sit down and want to be able to discuss the carbon tax and the unaffordable issue it is causing for their provinces. Why will the government not listen?

60 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/9/24 4:27:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for King—Vaughan is right that affordability is a concern. Lineups at food banks are a concern. If one listens to what food banks across this country are telling the government to do, one could look at every single pre-budget submission of theirs. None of them mention the carbon price. Let us look at the Daily Bread Food Bank, for example. Its top three recommendations, every single one, mentions the Canada disability benefit. Is the member for King—Vaughan going to advocate for the Canada disability benefit?

94 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

Apr/9/24 4:27:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am part of the accessibility committee in my community. I have been volunteering there for 10 years. I have no issue with the disability benefit, but I do have an issue with this: If we reduce the cost to individuals, their lives would be much easier. Let us get rid of that carbon tax—

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/9/24 4:27:55 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

15 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 4:28:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I am pleased to take part today in this debate on a subject of great importance for the future of our country. Once again, this motion from our colleagues in the official opposition makes it clear that they do not see the urgency of taking action on climate change. It is unfortunate, since it is very clear that the consequences of climate change are very real and very costly. This year's strange winter, with record temperatures and barely any snow, reminds us again that climate change is real, and so are its disastrous effects on Canadian communities. Just in the last year, communities across our country had to deal with historic wildfires, ice storms and tropical storms. The list goes on, as 2023 saw a record fire season in Canada. The area burned was more than double that of the historic record, with hundreds of thousands of Canadians evacuated from their homes as a result. In fact, the total area burned exceeded 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years. Also, the Canadian Climate Institute has concluded that climate change is already costing Canadian households billions of dollars. These costs are just the tip of the iceberg. For example, in May 2023, oil companies in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan were forced to curtail production as a precautionary measure in certain parts of these provinces. Thankfully, our government understands that making the right to pollute free is not going to save Canadians money, and the days of doing nothing are behind us. Not only would inaction cost Canadians a lot of money, it would put their lives and safety at risk. Moreover, it would obviously compromise the environment we all depend on. I am pleased to be part of a government that is shouldering its responsibilities and forging ahead to combat climate change. One of the ways we are doing this is through our carbon pricing system. As we know, experts agree that our pollution pricing system is the best tool we have to fight climate change and its devastating effects. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages innovation. It gives households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. I would also like to remind my hon. colleagues that our pollution pricing system is revenue-neutral. Every three months, the government delivers hundreds of dollars back to families through the Canada carbon rebate. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, a family of four will receive up to $1,800 in Canada carbon rebate amounts in 2024-25. For this fiscal year, residents of the provinces where the rebate applies will receive the first of their four payments next week. Thanks to this rebate, eight out of 10 families receive more money than they pay. We are also making sure that big polluters pay their fair share. Our government also understands that Canadians living in rural areas face unique challenges because they travel longer distances to get to school, work and the grocery store. We are proposing legislative amendments in Bill C‑59 to double the rural top-up from 10% to 20% of the basic rebate, because we understand their energy needs are greater and they have limited access to cleaner transportation options. We also understand that some situations call for flexibility. That is why we took temporary and targeted action to pause the fuel charge on heating oil with the goal of getting consumers off of home heating oil and onto a cleaner and far more affordable alternative. We took action to temporarily pause the application of the federal fuel charge on heating oil, not because it is a source of home heating but because it is the most expensive form of home heating. It costs two to four times more to heat a home. That means that these costs are taking a big chunk out of the budgets of lower income Canadians. Heating oil is currently used by 1.1 million homes in Canada, including 267,000 in Ontario and 287,000 across Atlantic Canada. We are committed to continue moving forward with our pollution pricing system while also supporting Canadians who need support to transition to greener options. As our fall economic statement confirmed, we want to financially help Canadians to make the transition from home heating oil to better heating systems. Heat pumps are a cleaner way to heat and, in the long run, they lead to lower energy bills. With our oil to heat pump affordability program, we are partnering with provinces and territories to increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000, by adding up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial and territorial contributions via co-delivery arrangements. This means that heating systems and installation are free for low- and middle-income households, since we keep lowering costs and making access to federal programs easier. A heat pump is one of the best ways that homeowners can break free from heating oil, save money on their heating bills and help fight climate change. Homeowners who switch from heating oil to heat pumps save an average of up to $2,500 a year on their heating bill. Without question, we must keep up our efforts to fight climate change. Doing nothing, as the opposition wants, would have a devastating impact on the environment, our economy, our communities and the health of Canadians. Canadians can count on us to keep implementing our actions to fight climate change and support them through this transition. I firmly believe that this is the responsible thing to do. The cost of inaction would simply be way too high. Canadians deserve a government that handles this file seriously and responsibly. That is what we will continue to do.

1018 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Apr/9/24 4:36:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened intently and I have to mention in the House something that I do not think the member even knows. Over 20 years ago, Saskatchewan, on its own initiative, without any kind of punitive action on the part of the government, removed oil heating from our province. The Global Institute for Food Security put forward and commissioned a study in 2022 that examined the carbon footprint from the production of five Canadian field crops, canola, non-durum wheat, field peas, durum wheat and lentils, and compared our footprint and supply chain emissions to the parts of the world that exported the same products: Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the United States. It was found that Saskatchewan, particularly, and western Canada are producing crops with the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions or carbon dioxide equivalents among any of those regions. There is no recognition of the efforts that were already put forward back when the Prime Minister met with Mr. Moe, who was our environmental minister at the time, and said there were five or six options and to go home and decide what they wanted to do. We came back with our decision, and the Prime Minister said he had a change of mind, for a government that supposedly never does anything but exactly what it said it was going to do, and gave them only two options, yet here we are, an example to the world coming back from COP 23 with opportunities around the world to increase improvements in carbon reduction. What is the problem with the government recognizing how incredible Canada already is and how we are working without this punitive tax?

279 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Apr/9/24 4:37:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we obviously recognize the actions being taken across Canada. Right now, these are things that we need to do. The planet is in dire straits, so the more we do, the better. I heard the member for Lévis—Lotbinière talk about his newborn grandchild, and I congratulate him. I was surprised to hear how little desire—and how little will—there is to take action to ensure that we are very actively engaged in the fight against climate change. Climate change is here and it is real, and we must take action. The time for inaction is over. That is why we are proposing concrete measures that will have a real impact on the fight against climate change.

128 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/9/24 4:39:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals stand up for the environment. We keep repeating that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. We have opted for a carbon exchange instead. More and more states, including Washington, will be joining this North American exchange. It is time to send the message that this system can work, and that other places in North America are interested. Nevertheless, the Liberals are still investing in oil companies and ensuring that those people receive these credits. Would my colleague not agree that if the government really wants to send a strong message on the environment, it absolutely must stop investing all this money in the oil industry and instead invest in a green transition?

123 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Apr/9/24 4:40:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague said she is surprised to see the Liberals standing up for climate action. The fact remains that our government has invested more than any other government in recent years. Over $100 billion has been invested in the fight against climate change. This amount alone is very tangible proof of our commitment and our willingness to take action. In Quebec, the carbon exchange does work very well. Various American states are looking to us to see how we can work together. I think that is the direction we need to take in order to ensure that we are protecting our environment.

105 words

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

Apr/9/24 4:40:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives will not do anything about the climate crisis, but the Liberals are flailing about doing all sorts of conflicting things. I hope my colleague does not count in the $100 billion the $36 billion the Trans Mountain pipeline is costing us, or the authorization of the Bay du Nord gas project, or the $18 billion handed out to oil and gas companies in subsidies every year, or the $14 billion we learned today was not spent on the climate crisis. How is it, and how does she explain, that they failed to spend $14 billion on the climate crisis, when that is so urgent?

108 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière

Apr/9/24 4:41:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are two things on which I completely agree with my colleague: the fact that urgent action is needed and the fact that we have invested money and must continue to do so. The crisis is here now. The Conservatives' lack of a plan is certainly not the solution.

51 words

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

Apr/9/24 4:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for giving me the opportunity to make a brief speech on today's motion. I thank him profusely. I have been here for the full day of debate. Let me break down what the supply motion today from the Conservative Party deals with. It posits that we have a carbon tax crisis and suggests that the solution is to bring the premiers to Ottawa, or somewhere, and have a first ministers conference. I am going to try to address two very large and complex questions in the next 10 minutes. One is the climate crisis, and associated with that, the role of carbon pricing. The other is the nature of our federation, the role of first ministers conferences and what else might work. The first thing to do is to clearly state that there is no carbon tax crisis. The real crisis, the real urgency, is global warming and climate change. It is almost too late. Time is running out. We have a very large climate crisis, which threatens all aspects of our lives in Canada. In British Columbia, in four days, 619 people died in the summer of 2021 because of a heat dome. Those were preventable deaths, but 619 people still died, according to the B.C. Coroners Service, which studied those deaths. In the same season, we had wildfires that also compromised our health and threatened lives. That fall, we had the atmospheric rivers that were responsible for billions of dollars of infrastructure needing to be replaced, which was a huge hit to the economy. We also had the other side of the country dealing with hurricane Fiona, which lifted houses up along the shore of Port aux Basques and deposited them in the ocean. In other words, we have had loss of life, as well as unprecedented fires and floods that threaten lives. We are seeing a climate crisis that requires us to pull together, yet how do we behave in terms of the question of a first ministers conference? I look at the European Union and at Canada, and I think we have a crisis where, for some reason, we cannot even think like a country. We act like a vulcanized group of federations that do not like each other very much. We have 10 provinces, three territories and one federal government, and we do not have our act together nearly as well as the European Union does. It has 27 separate sovereign nation-states that are not part of the same country. In fact, they have countries that were, in my parents' lives, at war with each other: Germany and France. The European Union has 27 nation-states and 24 official languages. From the very beginning of addressing the climate crisis, going back to Kyoto in December 1997, the European Union came with a collective pledge, divvied it up among all the nations and started achieving it. Every single European nation more than achieved their Kyoto targets to well below 1990 levels, while Canada continued to soar above 1990 levels. When Putin invaded Ukraine, the European Union said, “We'd better help Ukraine and make sure it can get electricity, because clearly Putin wants people to freeze.” It took a matter of weeks for the European Union to tell Ukraine it was going to plug Ukraine into its electricity grid. We cannot get Quebec hydroelectricity into Nova Scotia, where the electricity is still generated by coal, because we cannot get Hydro-Québec to work with Emera in Nova Scotia to deliver zero-carbon hydroelectricity. We cannot get our clean electricity from southern Canada up to Nunavut so it can stop burning diesel. Why is this? We do not seem to be able to coordinate very well. I will look at the history of first ministers conferences. We had a lot in the past, and maybe it is not the best way to get action. If we look back at the Mulroney government, action on acid rain was not taken by pulling everyone together into the same room. Mulroney's genius on this was to get one deal at a time bilaterally. If they were going to shut down the pollution that causes acid rain, they started with the easiest of the provinces, the one that polluted the least but was having a lot of damage. Prince Edward Island was the first bilateral deal between the federal government and a province, Canada-P.E.I. The last one was the federal government and Ontario, because Ontario's Inco smelter was the single largest point source of acid rain causing pollution in all of North America. One at a time, we got deals with each province all the way across; the Mulroney government then told the Americans that it was coming to them with clean hands. It had already cut its pollution in half, so the Americans should do the same; in that way, they could clean up acid rain. Mulroney did have a lot of first ministers meetings as well. If we look at his history on this, Pierre Trudeau had five first ministers conferences, some of them historic. Repatriating the Constitution was a rather big first ministers meeting. Former prime minister Mulroney, whom I have mentioned, had 14 first ministers conferences; Jean Chrétien had seven. However, they came to a grinding halt under Stephen Harper, who, over a nine-year period, had two, one in 2008 and one in 2009. The current Prime Minister, over a nine-year period, has held three. It is not a great record in terms of collaboration, but at least there were far more first ministers conferences than under Stephen Harper. Are first ministers conferences the way to go? How do we do it? What is the best way to get our country to think like a country? Today, April 9, happens to be the 40th anniversary of the day that the House unanimously passed the Canada Health Act. I was reminded of this fact by our former colleague and friend Jane Philpott, who has written a book about how we need to collaborate for health care. We do not have a carbon tax crisis. I would say we have an affordability crisis right across Canada. There is no question. The carbon tax plays, according to every economist, a minuscule role in the affordability crisis. We have a health crisis. Family doctors are not available to everyone. Is health care a right in this country? That would be a good place to have a collaborative first ministers conference. Could we do that? We certainly have a climate crisis. How do we address that? How can we get ourselves to pull together? Canadians pull together when the climate crisis hits home. When people are out of their homes because of floods or fires, we know Canadians pull together. We still have no national firefighting force or plan for it. We do not have water bombers sufficient to deal with the summer of climate crisis fires that we can expect to see. There is so much more we could do if we tried to figure out how to get collaboration to occur. One thing we need to do is agree that electrifying almost everything is one of the best ways to reduce emissions, and the best way to make that reliable is to treat the grid like a battery. Let more people produce. Let more people into the market. Let indigenous nations produce solar and wind. Let coastal communities produce tidal and wind power and sell it into the grid, and when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, pull it out of the grid. Going back to Europe, Denmark's excess wind is sold to Norway. Norway takes that excess wind power, pumps it up into reservoirs and lets it flow down to create electricity when the sun is not shining in Denmark. This is not rocket science. For God's sake, as Canadians, we know we are the same people and the same communities. We basically love each other, and we have to start acting like a country, because the climate crisis threatens our kids' future in a real way that carbon pricing does not. Carbon pricing, at long last, has gotten some reduction in emissions. However, the truth of the matter is that, for so long, the government in Canada, regardless of Conservative or Liberal, has been so busy trying to build up the fossil fuel industry and throw it tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that we have not confronted the problem. The problem is big polluters. We need to address that. We need to move off fossil fuels. We need to do it quickly while we still have time to save our future. We need to tax the excess profits. So far this year, Shell has had $28 billion in profits and paid it out to its shareholders. For Heaven's sake, this is not rocket science. We can get this right. Let us move this debate to solutions.

1523 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/9/24 4:51:49 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Carbon Pricing.

66 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 4:52:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, ultimately, I would take a look at the carbon rebate and carbon tax issue as more of a price on pollution and an environmental issue. However, I think that we lose that thought. The best way to illustrate the politicization of the issue is to take a look at what is happening in the province of Alberta. One only needs to look at the current premier. Before she was premier, she seemed to be of the opinion that we were going in the right direction on a price on pollution and the impact it was having; she even cited a personal example. Today, she is a premier and one of the individuals who have really focused on getting rid of the carbon rebate or the price on pollution. Could the leader of the Green Party provide her thoughts on the degree to which the politicization of the issue can be very damaging for good, sound public policy.

159 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Apr/9/24 4:53:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the actions of the premier of Alberta are quite baffling, because her decision to put a pause on renewables when there are billions of dollars of investment trying to get into Alberta makes no sense. Alberta has the best potential for solar, and that is where Alberta is a real energy powerhouse. The facility that was recently put in place near Okotoks is delivering solar power at under three cents a kilowatt hour, and it rolled out fast. There is nothing that can compete with that. If we look at solar and wind as sources of electricity, the price to consumers plummets. However, when the marginal cost of a kilowatt hour is zero, the utilities are resistant. Their profit model, their business model, is that they make energy in big megaprojects and sell it along long, stringy lines, where it loses efficiency, to consumers who have no choice but to buy it. We can bring down the price of electricity. Let little communities, indigenous nations and people produce their own electricity with renewables. If we bring down that price, it will help everyone except, for some reason, the Premier of Alberta.

193 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Apr/9/24 4:54:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the one hand, we are seeing a desire to reduce our carbon footprint, but on the other hand, we are seeing investments in the oil industry, in particular, as well as in carbon capture, which is not very effective. Does my colleague not think that there is a double standard here? Should we not be more consistent in regard to the measures we are taking to fight pollution so that we can become a world leader and keep other countries from making the same mistakes we made?

90 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Apr/9/24 4:55:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is making decisions that are big mistakes. The biggest mistake is to continue to give huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. That makes no sense. For example, $34 billion in taxpayers' money was invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline. Not only does that not make any sense economically, but it is also a big threat to our environment. That was done with public money. That is more than all the subsidies for clean, green energy. It makes no sense.

87 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Apr/9/24 4:56:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I share the member's dismay; on issues like this, it feels as though we are less and less a single country pulling in the same direction. The motion before us calls for a first ministers meeting, and I cannot help but feel that the only path towards greater unity involves talking to each other. Does the member feel that, if such a meeting were to take place, if the Prime Minister were to heed this motion and call a first ministers meeting to talk about this, the premiers would engage in that meeting in good faith?

99 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 296