SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 92 - Jun/20/22

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:47:12 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

6 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/20/22 11:47:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect not. I request a recorded division.

10 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:47:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

42 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/20/22 11:47:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it midnight so the House can adjourn.

25 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:47:58 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

Jun/20/22 11:48:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I put to the Prime Minister on April 6, which was two days after a quite devastating report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was from working group III, in the sixth assessment report. What that report told me when I read it was that we have less time than I thought, because the timeline for action to avoid going above 1.5°C or even holding to below 2°C was shortened considerably. I asked the Prime Minister, two days later, whether anyone had briefed him on this new documentation from the IPCC and whether he understood how rapidly the window on 1.5°C was closing. Unfortunately, in the Prime Minister's answer, he revealed that he had not been briefed, not possibly. The answer he gave was the usual response, that the government is doing a wonderful job. He said that we have put forward a very comprehensive plan and that we are committed to reducing emissions and will reduce them “by 40% from 2005 levels in the next eight years.” That statement alone confirmed that no one had briefed him, or if they had he chose to reject the advice, because saying that we have a “doable and concrete” plan is not the same thing as saying that it is adequate. I am going to do something I probably should not attempt to do at midnight in this place, which is read from the “Summary for Policymakers”, give a reference to the paragraph and page, and decipher some fairly impenetrable language so if the Prime Minister or his staff should happen to watch this late show, maybe they will understand that they are proposing a plan that does not preserve any hope of holding to 1.5°C. Paragraph C.1, on page 22, working group III, sixth assessment report, from April 4, states, “Global GHG emissions are projected to peak between 2020 and at the latest before 2025 in global modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C...and in those that limit warming to 2°C...and assume immediate action.” I have to explain that the way the IPCC writes is somewhat impenetrable. It is not projecting something that will happen. The sentence would make more sense if it was reversed. What the IPCC is saying is that all the models it has worked through, all the pathways it has found that hold to 1.5°C or 2°C require that “between 2020 and at the latest before 2025” we begin to see a total drop in emissions, so the word “peak” is to suggest that no later than “before 2025” total greenhouse gas emissions must begin to drop and the highest level they ever achieve must be before 2025. This is seriously concerning, because going above 1.5°C or 2°C is not a political target. We cannot negotiate with the atmosphere. The physics and chemistry of the atmosphere tell us, from the best peer-review process of science in the history of the world, the IPCC, that we have to ensure that greenhouse gas levels begin to drop by then or the window on holding on to a livable world will close, and close forever. It does not reopen. I repeat: Going above 1.5°C or 2°C is not a political target. It is about whether global climate systems remain hospitable to our species. If we exceed those, our children may be condemned to an unlivable world.

617 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/20/22 11:52:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her remarks. I agree with her that the recent IPCC report is a stark reminder of the impacts of climate change and the urgency for action. As climate impacts intensify, it is only becoming more obvious that moving to a clean, net-zero economy is critical to protecting the well-being of Canadians and communities, and securing Canada's economic prosperity. At COP26, Canada announced it would take additional action to significantly reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector by setting emissions caps. At COP26, Canada also joined over 100 countries in signing the global methane pledge to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Canada will lead the way on oil and gas methane by going beyond our current target of 40% to 45% by 2025 to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030. As countries and businesses around the world move rapidly toward net-zero emissions, more ambition is needed today to ensure that Canada is not left behind and can secure a foothold in a low-carbon future. In 2021, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act became law. The act enshrines Canada's commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, establishes Canada's 2030 target as the first key milestone for this path, and ensures a transparent and accountable process in meeting our climate objectives. The 2030 emissions reduction plan, or the ERP, was established on March 29 and is the first of many to come under the act. The ERP is about more than achieving incremental GHG emissions reductions to reach Canada's 2030 target. It is also about putting in place foundational measures to ensure that Canada's future is not only carbon neutral, but that it also makes energy alternatives more affordable and creates new, sustainable job opportunities for workers. The ERP includes a suite of new mitigation measures and strategies. It builds on the foundation set by the pan-Canadian framework and the 2020 strengthened climate plan, and considers the best available science, indigenous knowledge and the advice of the net-zero advisory body. Achieving Canada's climate objectives will be a whole-of-economy and whole-of-society effort. Every economic sector has a role and responsibility to reduce emissions, but the pathway to achieving emissions reduction will look different for each. The 2030 ERP takes into account this reality. It sets out guideposts for each sector to further reduce emissions, and highlights the measures and strategies towards an emissions reduction of 40% below 2005 levels. We are taking action in the electricity sector and will work with provinces and utilities to establish a pan-Canadian grid council to promote clean electricity infrastructure investments. I see I am running short on time, but we are doing many more things, including investing in nature and natural climate solutions to deliver additional emissions reductions, and making significant new investments to support a sustainable future for Canadian farmers. As the hon. member knows, we will be instituting an emissions cap and taking further measures to reduce our emissions.

524 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/20/22 11:56:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I now have to ask the parliamentary secretary, who is an old friend, if he has read the IPCC report, because his answer reflects the usual complacency we hear. The government is doing things. There is no denying there are many programs, but the totality of those programs does not ensure that we can hold to 1.5°C or 2°C. In fact, they do the opposite. Net zero by 2050, by itself, is not science: It is a marketing slogan. What we have to look at is that last year, 619 people in British Columbia died in four days. There were wildfires across the province and floods in November. All that has happened to Canada right now at a 1.1°C global average temperature increase. We are on track for three times more. It is not survivable. Nothing matters if we do not get this right.

154 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Jun/20/22 11:57:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and advocacy, which I share. I can assure the member that we will continue to work with other levels of government, indigenous peoples, experts, industry, stakeholders and interested Canadians to build on our collective action to drive further reductions and put Canada on that path to net zero.

58 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/20/22 11:57:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, in which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-6, an act respecting regulatory modernization.

45 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/20/22 11:58:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask members to imagine a runner. He takes his place and is about to run the biggest race of his lifetime, but before the whistle blows, he leans down and ties his shoelaces together so that one shoe is securely fastened to the other shoe. Then the runner deliberately turns around so that his back faces the finish line and sits down. Meanwhile, all his opponents stand at the ready. Their shoes are fastened properly and they face forward. These runners are prepared to race. That is a good way for us to picture the different position the Prime Minister is putting Canada in when there is a looming global food shortage that we are not prepared for. Other countries around the world are ready. They are not punishing producers and they have a plan to tackle the looming crisis. Agriculture is our superpower. It is this hidden economic driver that can not only solve world hunger but could also bring a great deal of prosperity to this nation. However, our producers cannot do this alone. They need the government to work alongside them, not against them, but the Prime Minister fails to recognize this. Not only that, but he has belittled and disrespected this industry by tying its hands behind its back and kicking it aside, all the while expecting it to solve our problems. It started with applying the carbon tax to on-farm fuels, followed by poor trade deals and then a threat of a 30% reduction in fertilizer usage. Now our producers are dealing with sky-high input costs and the new threat of front-of-pack labelling for single-ingredient ground beef. At the very least, all our producers are asking for from the government is clarity. Unlike everyone else, our farmers only get one shot at success every year, and they cannot go into this blindly. In my question, I asked the minister for clarity around the retroactive tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2. In her answer, she refused to give specifics. Now we are here on June 20, and our farmers are still somewhat in the dark. Fertilizer prices have more than doubled over the winter, and when these are coupled with sky-high input costs, our producers simply cannot afford an extra tariff that was applied on a product purchased before the war even started. Despite what the minister thinks, fertilizer is not some optional add-on; rather, it is a critical tool that is used to boost crop yields and maximize output. Farmers really have no choice but to use it in order to meet the global demand and to make a profit on the crops that they grow. As we look at what is happening across the globe with the war in Ukraine, India placing a ban on the export of wheat and poor yields as a result of the drought in western Canada, it is safe to say that we are on the brink of a global food crisis. If we want to solve this problem with a made-in-Canada solution, the government should work to make inputs less expensive so we can increase crop yields. The minister can do this today by cancelling the tariff on Russian fertilizer. Tonight I will ask again: Will the government do the right thing and remove the retroactive tariff on fertilizer purchased before March 2?

570 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/21/22 12:01:17 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for raising this important question. I understand the decision to withdraw WTO benefits for Russia and Belarus was taken in the context of pre-existing challenges for the agricultural sector in Canada this spring season. However, I would like to remind the hon. member that the government adopted this trade measure as part of a broad and comprehensive set of sanctions in concert with like-minded global partners to ensure that countries that seriously threaten and breach the rules-based international order cannot benefit from it. Russia's actions, facilitated by Belarus, blatantly violate international law and pose a dire threat to international peace and security. Canada will continue to hold the Russian regime accountable for its attack on the democracy and independence of Ukraine as we stand together with its people. As members know, we announced on March 3 that Russia and Belarus's entitlement to WTO tariff treatment had been removed under the Customs Tariff, resulting in a 35% tariff right applicable to virtually all imports from these countries. However, the order also ensured that goods that were already in transit to Canada on or before March 2 could still benefit from WTO tariff treatment. I would also like to remind the hon. member that customs duties and taxes are paid by importers based on the time of importation of goods and not the date when they are purchased, so it is also important to understand that the 35% tariff for Russian fertilizer is not imposed on farmers, but is paid by importers. In this instance, some importers maintained their purchases from Russia, even after the measure was implemented, while others decided to make other sourcing arrangements. As a result, providing relief from the tariff to importers who maintained their purchases from Russia would be inequitable to those importers who changed their sourcing away from Russia, often incurring greater costs. It would also not translate into reduced costs for many farmers. I can also confirm that in order to preserve the integrity of Canada's Ukraine response measures, the government will not be granting tariff relief for any Russian goods affected by the withdrawal of WTO tariff preferences, including fertilizers. Government officials have already communicated this information to industry stakeholders so that Canadian businesses can take steps to diversify their supply chains away from Russia in the near term. Also, I would like to note that in recognition of the challenges facing the sector, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has amended its advance payments program with a federal loan program guarantee that provides agricultural producers with easy access to low-interest cash advances. Instead of receiving advances in two instalments, producers are now eligible to receive their full 2022 advance immediately when they apply.

471 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/21/22 12:04:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, it is backwards hearing it from the parliamentary secretary when he thinks that just because it is paid by importers, somehow farmers are not going to have to pay for it. We all know the importers are going to pass that cost on to the farmer, but the farmer has no means of passing that cost on to anybody else. If the government truly wanted to support farmers, it would scrap the tariff for farmers. Canada is also an outlier on this issue. The G7 countries do not have this kind of tariff because they truly know what it means to support farmers. Supporting farmers and going tough on Russia for its illegal occupation of Ukraine are not exclusive to each other. I call on the minister once again. Let us harness our superpower and use it to address the looming global food crisis. After seven years of working against our farmers, the government has an opportunity to change course. Instead of working against them by making their lives more expensive, let us work alongside our producers. Standing up and saying they are working with the industry is not enough. Our farmers deserve actions and results. Once again, will the government do the right thing, support our farmers and drop the tariff on Russian fertilizer purchased before March 2?

222 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

Jun/21/22 12:06:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we understand that Canadian farmers are going through a difficult time due to the unprecedented supply chain disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the severe commodity disruptions arising from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. However, as I just explained, removing the tariff on fertilizer would not really help farmers as the tariff is not imposed on them, but rather on importers. That is why, in order to really support our farmers, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has amended its advance payments program so that farmers can have access to cash advances faster this year.

99 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/21/22 12:06:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by quickly acknowledging the work of an incredible organization in my riding. I am very pleased to highlight the incredible work of the Société francophone de Victoria, which serves more than 5,000 people who speak French in Victoria. In addition to promoting, representing and protecting the French language and culture, this organization has created spaces that foster inclusion and celebrate expression. From June 21 to August 18, it will hold Rendez-vous Victoria, a community event with music activities and performances, all in French. To support its objective of creating an inclusive francophone community space in the downtown area, the Société francophone de Victoria has applied for federal funding to help buy the building it currently occupies and make it more accessible. I am very grateful to this organization for its passion and dedication, and I am asking the government to support its work. Now I will get to a critical issue. Last week, we found out that internal documents from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada showed that the Liberal government’s climate plan and targets are not feasible. Sadly, it is not surprising. Canada has never met a single climate target it set. Under the Liberals, Canada has the worst record in the G7, and Canada has the worst track record in the G20 when it comes to handing out public money to oil and gas companies. It has now been three years since the Liberals declared a climate emergency, but they are still not taking action at the scale or speed required. Their claim that they could reduce oil and gas emissions while increasing oil and gas production never made any sense. It is clear that we will not meet our targets by relying on costly, unproven carbon capture technology, technology that those same internal documents called “high risk”. The Liberals’ emissions reduction plan only aims to meet the low end of their target to reduce emissions by 40% to 45%, which is not adequate. It does not leave any room for error, yet they are relying on “high risk” carbon capture technology. The IPCC is clear that the world urgently needs to move away from fossil fuels and make significant investments in renewable energy if we have any hope of securing a livable future. They have also warned against relying too heavily on carbon capture. They point out that it is one of the most costly and least effective options. Renewable energy technology is ready and available, and over the past decade the costs have decreased significantly. The International Energy Agency reports that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in history, and their cost continues to drop. If we are going to meet our climate targets and avoid the most catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis, Canada needs to dramatically boost investments in renewable energy. These investments, along with strengthening grids and electrifying infrastructure, not only help us fight the climate crisis, but also create good, long-term jobs for Canadians. Instead of investing in renewables and in a just transition for workers, Canada continues to hand out billions in public financing to profitable oil and gas companies. Will the government commit to ending all fossil fuel subsidies, stop funnelling billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies through a carbon capture tax credit and instead invest in real climate solutions?

585 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/21/22 12:11:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. However, it is not the question I was expecting in these adjournment proceedings. The question I have before me is with regard to the report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, so I am going to reflect on that and I think I will get at the member's question by talking about it. We have made a lot of progress on climate action in this country. A good example of this is carbon pricing. In 2019, because of the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, we succeeded in having a carbon price in place throughout Canada for the first time. This was a critically important step toward reducing economy-wide emissions. We deliberately established the overall approach within a relatively short period of application, from 2018 to 2022, to allow us to learn lessons and improve the approach for the longer term. As the commissioner identified, the initial experience illustrated the need to strengthen some aspects of the minimum national stringency standards, so in 2021 we published a new, strengthened set of criteria alongside a longer-term, more ambitious carbon pricing trajectory, rising by $15 a year to $170 per tonne by 2030. As the commissioner noted, these new criteria significantly improved the rules for carbon pricing, including for industrial emitters, and I am confident that provinces and territories will strengthen their systems for industrial emitters to ensure they do their part. When we published the new criteria, we also committed to an additional review of carbon pricing by 2026. This will allow us to work with provinces and territories to address the remaining issues raised by the commissioner. The lesson here is that ambitious climate action is achievable and requires continuous improvement. The commissioner also discussed the impact of carbon pricing on indigenous communities, and we have taken real action to address these impacts in the provinces where the federal fuel charge applies and where we return revenue directly, those currently being Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. The climate action incentive gives most households more back than they pay in the carbon price, and rural households receive an additional 10%. This addresses the impact on most indigenous households. In 2021, we augmented this approach by tripling the amount of fuel charge proceeds going back to indigenous communities and we are co-developing solutions for returning these funds. Finally, recognizing the need to go further, we have committed to gather more data so that we can make sure any remaining impacts are addressed. In closing, I want to thank the commissioner for his work. Our government is taking ambitious action on climate. I am proud of our record as it is progressing and of the new actions we are undertaking, but there is always more room for improvement, I think the hon. member will agree, and the commissioner's work is vital for identifying where we can do more and do better.

499 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/21/22 12:14:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his answers, for being available to answer questions at this late hour, past midnight, and for his reflections on this scathing report from the environment commissioner. I also want to bring up what the environment commissioner is pointing to, which is that this government has been going from failure to failure. His own department called carbon capture “high risk” and said that with their plan, it was not feasible to meet emissions reduction targets in the oil and gas sector. Experts have learned not to rely on carbon capture to meet our climate targets, yet when big oil asks for yet another subsidy, billions of dollars of more public money, the government gave them the carbon capture tax credit. The government also bought a pipeline, approved Bay du Nord and plans to increase oil and gas production. That is not a climate plan. Why are the Liberals listening to big oil instead of climate experts?

166 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

Jun/21/22 12:15:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate, our government is committed to ensuring a just transition, including ensuring that Canada's workers have the skills necessary to take advantage of these opportunities by consulting on just transition legislation and by supporting sustainable jobs in every region of the country. Over the past two years, we have made historic investments in support of economic recovery, climate action, and skills and training that will create sustainable jobs. We are making investments in carbon capture and storage. By way of comments from the IPCC, which the hon. member is fond of quoting, it will be an important part of the mix in getting to our 2030 targets and net zero by 2050 and sharing this technology with the world.

124 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/21/22 12:16:38 a.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 12:16 a.m.)

43 words