44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 15, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I believe that governments and politicians have to be honest about their policies and about what they stand for. Just as was the case under the former Conservative government, just as our leader says, just as all of my common-sense Conservative colleagues say, I believe that emissions reductions should be achieved through technology and not taxes, and through Canadians workers, Canadian ingenuity and the Canadian private sector.
I want to appreciate and acknowledge the Bloc's participation on the bill. Several times, its members supported provincial jurisdiction and in that way would tell the federal government to back off from its top-down, central planning, micromanagement embodied in Bill C-50. I certainly appreciate the Bloc's support on those principles.
I would also note that Bloc members themselves tried to make amendments to have Bill C-50 include language about preserving existing jobs in all these sectors that will be hurt by the just transition. Also, the Bloc tried to insert, in substantive ways, the concepts of fairness, transparency and equity within Bill C-50, but all those amendments that the Bloc proposed were rejected by the NDP-Liberals, too.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I was 17, I was playing in biker bars, so getting tackled by a Conservative from Alberta is not something that I lose much sleep over. Hopefully, they will not start throwing bottles.
Right now, I am going back to the issue that disinformation, rage politics and relentless falsehoods are being promoted by climate deniers in the midst of a climate catastrophe. The question for me is the issue of climate denial, not only by bots, but also by a government in its belief that, if it just does a little bit here and a little bit there, everything will be fine. That is another form of climate denialism. It is not good enough, not at this time in our history.
The belief on the government's side is that corporations must do their part and that it has Pathways Alliance, with a 2050 plan for net zero. We have seen that Pathways Alliance has met none of its objectives. It has spent millions on disinformation campaigns, but Canada is the only G7 country where emissions continue to rise. If it continues on this path, our emissions will be much higher.
There is a great peer-reviewed study on Pathways Alliance. I encourage everyone to read it, because it shows the greenwashing, disinformation and fundamental lack of honesty that are evident. In the review, it said there was no credible proof of Pathways Alliance's carbon capture claims making any difference, yet it wants us to give them billions in carbon capture. What it is doing with carbon capture is not lowering emissions; it is using carbon capture to pump out more oil and gas and to burn more, while telling us that we have to pay for it.
This shows how they all worked together on this disinformation campaign. This is a peer-reviewed study. I am not just making this up. I read peer-review studies once in a while. It reads, “the degree of strategic coordination shown by the main producers of the oil sands sector reflects a troubling concentration of corporate power for the purposes of political and public influence.” I see my colleagues over there and my colleagues here. It continues by saying that “regulators...should actively consider how to equip themselves to detect and address sector-scale greenwashing.” They say this becomes a really important issue “as liability claims mount regarding the role of fossil fuels organizations in their ‘failure to warn’ of impeding harms due to their products.”
This issue of a “failure to warn” leads us to where this is going to go: to lawsuits. Those are the decisions where we will see some action. We know that Shell has recently been found guilty by a Dutch court of failing to mitigate against climate disaster and constant disinformation. Shell has been ordered to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030. That is what courts are doing. The European Court of Human Rights has just moved against big oil.
We have groundbreaking lawsuits. I really like the one in Colorado. I encourage people to check it out, because it names the Canadian giant Suncor and Exxon.
Since 2017, five states, the District of Columbia and 20 municipalities in the U.S. have taken major climate polluters to court for knowingly spreading disinformation. I certainly encourage people to read the California statement. This is the big tobacco moment. This is where the people are able to get back, and there is some great stuff in it. It talks about how Exxon and Shell purposely directed tortuous conduct toward California by distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting and supplying fossil fuels with the knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and will continue to cause climate change-related harms, including to the state's industries. It is a campaign of deception and denial of climate change.
That right there is the entire platform of the Conservative opposition, which does everything on bumper stickers. I think we could put its entire environmental strategy, denialism of what the crisis is, on a bumper sticker. It would even fit on a little Austin Mini.
I want to go through some of these issues here, because it is really important that people understand what they knew and the importance of having stuff in place to take them on. Since at least 1988, the American Petroleum Institute participated and led several coalitions to promote disinformation. It has had front groups including the Global Climate Coalition; the Partnership for a Better Energy Future; the Coalition for American Jobs; and I love this one, the Alliance for Climate Strategies. They knew in the late 1960s that they were in a situation where the ice caps would actually start to melt by the year 2000. They knew that in 1968, so they lied. That was the American Petroleum Institute.
In 1980, Esso, a good Canadian company, told its managers of the danger of C02 buildup in the atmosphere and that it could have catastrophic effects. Then they said that there were measures to lower emissions. In 1980, they could have lowered emissions, but it would have cost money. What did Esso do? Esso spent the money on disinformation, on greenwashing and on bogus studies.
In 1982, Exxon had much better science than anyone, and it is right here in the State of California versus the big oil giants. Exxon was warning, from their scientific studies, that climate catastrophe would become evident by the year 2000. That was when we would first start to notice its effects. However, by then it might be too late. All through the nineties, they knew, but what did they do? They decided to pay for bogus studies and disinformation, the kind of stuff that is still being spouted from the front benches of the Conservative Party today. They knew that the results would be catastrophic for the planet.
The other one that is very telling in the California indictment is that, in 1988, Shell did a study of scientific reports that said that, again, the crisis in climate would be noticeable to the public beginning in around the year 2000, which I think most of us agree is when most of began to wonder and worry, and by then, it would possibly be too late. What did Shell do? Shell raised their oil drilling platforms in the ocean by six feet, so that, as the ice caps collapsed, coastal cities were wiped out and South Pacific islands were destroyed, it would be to hell with them; Shell was going to make money.
That is what they did. That is in the indictment. This is like Philip Morris telling kids, “Not only is smoking good, but you have to smoke if you're going to grow up and be healthy.” They knew they were burning the planet.
How does this relate back to Bill C-50? It relates back to this constant pattern of the Conservatives to promote disinformation, bogus claims and hysterical talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to somehow be destroyed if we do anything to support—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:01:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when I knocked on doors this past summer, there were many days that saw smoke-filled air that prevented kids from going outside, far above normal temperatures that posed life-threatening conditions for vulnerable seniors, droughts that caused cracks in home foundations and anxiety about the future as the realities of climate change confront us in new and undeniable ways.
Canadians want to do their part to fight climate change, but they also need to take care of their families' needs. That is the advantage of our climate plan. It lets them do both, by providing rebates that offset added costs for eight out of 10 Canadians while at the same time being proven to effectively reduce pollution.
The Canadian Climate Institute released a study recently that detailed that all of the government’s current policies will prevent the equivalent of Quebec and Ontario’s emissions combined by 2030.
The world is moving away from heavily polluting fuels. If Canada does not do its part, we will be on the outside looking in, with international trading partners and allies shutting us out of deals and taxing our imports. We are going to continue to advocate for environmental policies that protect our future.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, we are on track to meet our 2026 climate target.
Most importantly, Ontario families, including those in Ottawa—Vanier, will receive $1,120 this year through the Canada carbon rebate, starting today. That means an extra $255 in their pockets. If the Conservatives stop their delay tactics, rural Ontario families can expect an extra 20% with the passage of Bill C‑59.
In 2015, Canada was clearly off track when it came to greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives had no plan, polluting was free and emissions kept rising. Today, thanks to the efforts of Canadians and our government, Canada's emissions have dropped by 8%.
The Conservatives refuse to fight climate. They prefer to chant slogans rather than help Canadians. On this side of the House, we are reducing emissions while making life better for eight out of 10 Canadians.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, Canada was on the wrong track. The Canadian government at the time had no climate plan. It was free to pollute and emissions kept going up. Now, because of work done in Nova Scotia and across the country, our emissions have declined by 8%.
For the first time ever, we are on track to meet our 2026 climate target, thanks in no small part to pollution pricing and the Canada carbon rebate.
Starting today, a Nova Scotia family of four will receive the first instalment of their $824 rebate. For the average family in my province, that is $157 more than they will pay out over the year. For rural families, they will get more when Conservatives finally stop blocking the 20% top-up in Bill C-59.
While the other side tries to ruin the rebate, hurting lower-income Canadians, we will continue our work to help Canadians leave a healthier planet for our grandkids.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:13:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, Canada was obviously on the wrong track with respect to carbon emissions. The Conservatives did not have a climate plan, pollution was free and emissions continued to rise.
Today, thanks to the work accomplished across the country, including the north, Canada's emissions have dropped by 8%. For the very first time, we are on the right track to meet our 2026 climate target.
My constituents in Yukon expect commitment on climate action. The price on pollution encourages us to find greener alternatives in our day-to-day lives while we benefit from the rebate, and the plan is working. A family of four in Whitehorse will receive over $1,200 through the Yukon carbon rebate this year, while a family of four living in rural Yukon gets $1,488 in automatic quarterly payments.
If there is one thing going up, it is the temperature. On this side of the House, we are reducing emissions while making life better for Canadians.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:17:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I watched a video from a proud Albertan, who did her family's taxes and got over $800 back through the Canada carbon rebate. Her family even got a little bump. They lived in a rural environment. She said that she probably ended up better off with that transfer. Who said this? Premier Danielle Smith.
While she should be supporting Albertans, the Conservative premier of my province is now playing politics, and since April 1 has even reinstated her 13¢-per-litre gas tax.
Our government instead is doubling down on protecting the environment, slashing emissions and putting more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
The Canada carbon rebate gives eight out of 10 families more money than they pay in carbon pricing. Canada is also on track to meet its climate target for the first time ever. The carbon pricing alone will account for a third of our emission reductions by 2030. Carbon pricing is not just a feel-good measure; it is something that works.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is important that people are not talking nonsense in the chamber. The Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said that he was extremely troubled by the opposition's selective use of the facts and their spin. Now 300 Canadian economists from across the country have said that the price on pollution is the best way to reduce carbon emissions in a manner that actually addresses affordability.
It is a true shame in the House that we have a climate-denying opposition, one that does not care about affordability. It is truly a shame.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:06:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal carbon pricing system was designed to keep the cost of living affordable for families by putting money back in their pockets. The next quarterly payments will be deposited in Canadians' bank accounts and delivered to their mailboxes starting today.
Can the Treasury Board minister tell the House how these rebates reduce emissions while making life more affordable for families across the country?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 8:09:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on March 21, I questioned the government about the punitive carbon tax burden on Alberta families. According to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average family in Alberta will be hit with $2,943 in carbon taxes this year. In a completely out-of-touch response, the member for Edmonton Centre claimed this was not a problem because these families will receive $2,160 in rebates with the rural top-up.
As I know the Liberals struggle with it, let us do the math together. If we have $2,943 and minus $2,160, that leaves families $783 out of pocket. That is nearly $800 that hard-working Albertans will pay directly from their pockets, thanks to the government's policy. The situation is even worse for those not qualifying for the rural top-up as they face a staggering $1,043 in carbon taxes not covered by any rebate.
The evidence is clear: The average family in Alberta pays more than they get back and it is not debatable. The PBO has also dismantled the Liberals' claim that eight out of 10 Canadians come out ahead with these rebates. In truth, the PBO states that 60% are actually worse off under this tax scheme.
Furthermore, constituents are sending me their heating bills, outraged to find that the carbon tax often exceeds the cost of the gas itself. I would be happy to send these bills to the minister, so he can explain to them why everything costs more. This is not just an abstract statistic. It is a harsh reality eating into household budgets. These are budgets already suffering because of the inflation caused by the Liberal government.
Additionally, the impact on our communities is devastating. Data from food banks across Yellowhead, like in Edson, show usage has increased by nearly 300%. This tax is not just a line item on a bill. It is a factor driving more of our neighbours toward food insecurity. Let us talk about the supposed environmental benefits. This tax has done nothing to reduce emissions or address climate change.
The government boasts about reduced emissions since the tax was implemented in 2019, conveniently leaving out that a global pandemic significantly cut emissions by reducing travel and economic activity. With the end of the pandemic, emissions in Canada have surged once again. What a surprise.
Let us not forget that Canada makes up less than 2% of global emissions, meaning if we went net zero tomorrow, countries like China, which does not have a carbon tax, would offset our efforts within a year. The carbon tax forces Canadians to pay up without offering any real alternatives. As the minister from Edmonton should know, Albertans need natural gas to heat their homes and gas-powered cars to get to work, especially when EVs fail in our cold climate.
Conservatives have a common-sense plan. We will incentivize innovation across industries to develop green technologies that not only lower emissions in Canada but can be marketed globally to tackle worldwide emissions challenges. We will axe the carbon tax and bring home affordability for all Canadians.
521 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 8:12:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleague that the numbers are very clear: Carbon pricing is not what is causing increases in grocery prices. Economists estimate that as of December, the carbon price contributed less than half a percentage point to grocery price increases. However, I think we can all agree that many Canadians are suffering from the cost of living crisis. That is why we are addressing it with our affordability plan and many of the new actions we will hear more about in tomorrow's budget.
It is categorically false to claim carbon pricing is causing major increases to grocery prices. Let me remind my colleagues of a few other facts. Households in Alberta received their Canada carbon rebate today. A family of four receives $450 today and $1,800 over the course of this year, with rural households getting a 20% top-up if the Conservatives support it, which it seems they will not. Eight out of 10 households get more money back than what they pay, on average, which is exactly what it says in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, and lower income households benefit even more.
I am not sure where the $3,000 number that my colleague is citing comes from, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer's March 2023 report indicates that for 2024-25, the net average cost per household after the Canada carbon rebate is actually $558 in savings, not costs. My colleagues in the House should know that when a policy does not generate any revenue for the government and the money is given back to Canadians, we are talking about a regulatory charge that is essential to reduce pollution, not about a tax.
Making it free to pollute will not save Canadians money. It will cost them more in the long run while endangering Canadians and jeopardizing the natural environment we all depend on. We know that there are better ways to make life more affordable for Canadians without destroying the environment and incurring more devastating costs farther down the road.
Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions, yes, but it also encourages innovation, and this is what we need in order to make significant strides in fighting climate change. It encourages reductions across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make those changes. It creates incentives for Canadian businesses to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services, and when it is done right, as we are doing here in Canada, it is both effective and affordable for consumers. That is because the bulk of the proceeds from the price on carbon pollution go straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies.
Our actions today are for everyone's tomorrow. The Government of Canada's plans are making a difference. We have successfully bent the curve on emissions and are fully committed to reaching our 2030 emissions reduction goals for a secure and prosperous future for all Canadians.
507 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 8:17:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, the member opposite obviously has not read the PBO's report, because it does not say what he is claiming it says. Putting a price on carbon pollution has been a pillar of our climate policy since 2019, and experts around the world, including over 300 economists in an open letter, say it is the cheapest and most effective tool to fight climate change. We know now that, based on the Canadian Climate Institute's recent report, it will account for one-third of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction, so that is pretty significant.
However, make no mistake: Failing to address climate change will make things even more expensive for Canadians. The cost of inaction is stark. If we ignore climate change, by 2025 we could see a $25-billion annual slowdown in our economic growth, and the Canadian Climate Institute estimates that will be 50% of GDP growth.
Are the Conservatives really saying they want to jeopardize the future prosperity of Canada for ideological reasons?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
