SoVote

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/7/24 10:07:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon who are concerned about natural gas bans being enacted by several municipalities across Canada. Natural gas produces far fewer emissions and is a lower cost alternative to heating oil, yet some municipalities are stopping families from using it to heat their homes. My constituents are calling on the government to be thoughtful in its approach to shifting how homeowners use energy to power their lives. They encourage provinces and municipalities to do the same.

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

May/7/24 11:45:09 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon talks about innovation and the cost of climate change to the world. To me, it seems interesting, because we have the opportunity to get more liquefied natural gas to global markets. As a Wood Mackenzie report just showed, if we get more Canadian LNG to Asia, we can actually reduce emissions, yet the climate change minister across the way, one of the radical ministers in the House, is putting a cap on getting LNG to that very market that wants to lower emissions. Does the member support getting more of Canada to the world to reduce emissions?

103 words

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:47:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not fully understand my colleague's question. I apologize. I can simply say that Hydro‑Québec has never received support from the federal government to pay for its facilities, unlike the oil and gas companies who, for the past 25 years, have benefited from generous tax credits and completely unbridled support from the federal government. As I said in my speech, these large oil and gas corporations are possibly the greediest players in Quebec society. In addition to polluting our lives and tarnishing our record on greenhouse gas emissions, they are making record profits while we continue to pay for them. This should concern my colleague far more than Hydro‑Québec.

121 words

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.)

May/7/24 6:58:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, there is a common misconception about carbon pollution pricing. It is not a tax. It is a measure recognized as one of the lowest cost and most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases, and therefore, of tackling the adverse impacts of climate change, which are very real. It is also a measure that the government has designed to make life more affordable for Canadians. Natural disasters are on the rise due to climate change, and we are all suffering the effects and the costs too. Last summer, forest fires forced tens of thousands of Canadians to evacuate their homes. There were also droughts in the Prairies, where the hon. member is from. There were intense hurricanes on the east coast, extreme flooding on the west coast, and melting permafrost in the north. What does that mean? It means we all need to accelerate climate action. Carbon pricing is core to serious climate action. It provides an incentive to innovate and reduce emissions, while allowing businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions. Carbon pricing is not about raising revenues. All proceeds from carbon pricing are returned to the jurisdiction they were collected from. The Canada carbon rebate, the CCR, returns fuel charge proceeds to Canadian residents through direct deposit or cheque every three months. Eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the CCR than they pay toward the fuel charge. Residents of these provinces living in small and rural communities also receive a rural top-up, which the government, under Bill C-59, is proposing to double from 10% of the base amount to 20%. The system actually leaves most families, especially low- and middle-income ones, better off financially. Carbon pricing is a fair system that does leave more money in the pockets of Canadian workers, and that makes life more affordable for lower-income families. The benefits go way beyond that. It is a tool to help us create healthier communities and usher in clean growth and a more sustainable future for our children and our children's children.

350 words

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/7/24 7:01:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, by putting a price on carbon pollution and returning the proceeds directly to Canadians, Canada is using the most efficient and affordable way to fight climate change and reduce emissions. If Canada is recognized internationally as a climate leader, it is in large part due to the robust carbon pollution pricing system we have in this country. We are seeing great progress. According to the World Bank, there are now 73 carbon pricing initiatives in place or slated for implementation across the globe, and they are following our example here in Canada. Together, these initiatives cover 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, Canada will keep promoting carbon pollution pricing. We cannot afford not to.

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water, Lib.)

May/7/24 7:16:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my friend from Calgary Centre. I enjoyed working with him at the environment committee on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, where we agreed on many things. Unfortunately, on this particular matter, I disagree strongly and I think the evidence supports what I am about to say, which is that carbon pricing is not increasing food prices significantly. As of December, the grand total impact of carbon pricing on food prices for Canadians, according to independent researchers, was less than half a per cent. It goes without saying that all of us are very concerned about the increases in food bank usage and the increased cost of living being felt by families. Our government is taking this very seriously and taking action to address it. However, fearmongering about carbon pricing does nothing to address this issue. Of course, it carefully avoids mentioning the reality that, because of the Canadian carbon rebate, eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the CCR than they pay toward the fuel charge. Because these are average amounts, lower and middle-income households are particularly better off. Most emissions from farming are already exempt from the federal fuel charge, 97%, in fact. Biological emissions from crop and livestock production are not subject to pollution pricing. Exemptions are provided for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, and commercial greenhouse operators are eligible to receive 80% relief from the fuel charge on natural gas and propane. I would also add that the Government of Canada has also implemented a refundable tax credit to return a portion of fuel charge proceeds directly to farm businesses operating in jurisdictions where the fuel charge applies. The Canada carbon rebate is also available to eligible individuals and their families to help offset the cost of federal pollution pricing, with residents of small and rural communities, including farmers and their families, able to receive a supplement of 20% of the baseline amount. Of course, our government has committed more than $1.5 billion to support farmers with adopting new practices and technologies that can reduce emissions and improve farm performance. For example, almost $170.2 million has been committed across 415 projects announced to date, under the agricultural clean technology program, to support the development and adoption of clean technologies that can reduce emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change, including more than $50 million that is set aside for farmers to put toward the purchase of more efficient grain dryers. Pricing pollution is not affecting food prices significantly. It is not hurting our farmers, who know more than many about the importance of taking action on climate change. Using misinformation and scare tactics is irresponsible when many Canadians are struggling right now.

462 words