44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 6, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/6/22 11:05:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the government has done, since day one, when we lowered taxes and allowed Canadians of lower and middle income to keep more of the money they earn, and increased taxes on those who have the most money to give into the system. The member voted against that motion.
The member speaks about carbon pricing in this country. It is going to be tripling by 2030, not overnight, and the money actually goes back to Canadians and to businesses, so it is a false narrative that the Conservatives are putting forward. Best of all, they do not have a plan on climate. They do not put forward any meaningful policies to reduce emissions. It is a false narrative, and it is extremely problematic.
I look forward to the day when the Conservatives look forward to a pricing system that is market based and can move forward. That is what the former leader of the official opposition did in the last election. I look forward to seeing what the new leader of the official opposition does in the next election.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 11:22:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like the House to get down to business, to work like the mature adults we are supposed to be, rather than to repeat slogans and idiocies all day.
With respect to the carbon tax, is my colleague aware that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is currently working intelligently to create exemptions where necessary, but that, overall, the carbon tax is necessary? There has to be a price on pollution if we are to take a different path.
My colleague mentioned the increase in the price of coffee in his speech as if it were a terrible thing. Is he aware that analysts are predicting that the price of coffee will not only remain high, but that, like chocolate, it will become the luxury product it once was? That is not because of the big bad Liberals, the big bad NDP and others, it is because of global warming. Is he aware of the aphid problems in our crops this year caused by global warming?
Can we please get down to business and work on climate change?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 11:23:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, neither the Bloc Québécois, nor the Liberals, nor the NDP have a plan to deal with climate change. They have a plan to increase taxes. Since the implementation of the carbon tax, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets have never been met. It simply has not worked.
The hon. member says there will be exceptions, but when? We introduced bills to exempt farmers years ago, but that never happened. We cannot trust the current government or the costly coalition to make it happen.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 2:17:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the new Conservative leader will put the people first: their paycheques, their savings, their home and their country.
The carbon tax is an utter failure. Liberals say it will reduce emissions, but emissions have gone up under the government. B.C. has had a carbon tax for 14 years, and its emissions have only gone up. Quebec has had one for 12 years, and its emissions have gone up as well. The carbon tax only drives the cost of everything higher and is punishing Canadians who can least afford it.
The Liberals say people get more money back from the carbon tax, but the PBO has said this is false, and many Canadians lose money because of the carbon tax. However, the Liberal government is going to triple the carbon tax by April 2023.
It would seem the Prime Minister is experiencing the carbon tax differently from hard-working Canadians, but help is on the way. A Conservative government led by our new leader would scrap the carbon tax.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 2:35:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in contrast, the Conservative leader has condemned these actions and has actually asked the Prime Minister to hold himself to account for his actions, so I expect that.
In my riding, they have actually had a nice fall. Harvest is done. They are looking through their bills. They are saying, “Oh my God, everything is more expensive due to this Liberal carbon tax.” This has meant that they have less money to feed their families, to take care of their livestock and to pay for their heat.
Will the Prime Minister cancel his plan to triple the carbon tax? Can he not understand that Canadians cannot afford it?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 3:59:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we do agree with much of the bill. The big thing is competition, and that looks at how companies are acting and what choice is there for consumers.
The member talked about people being gouged and what they cannot afford. Our farmers provide food, and if we are looking at the competition, we see there are 189,000 farms in Canada. They are paying, on average, $45,000 each in carbon tax, and they are only getting back $862. We are talking about that end of the industry.
Of course, we are also going to look at competition for our grocery stores. We are going to look at farmers' markets and the other ways that people get nutritious, healthy food. That seems to be about gouging. They are not finding relief at a time when farmers cannot choose other sources. We want them to use hydrogen and want them to use better fossil fuels or no carbon, but when it comes to that idea, they do not have a choice.
Why is the member not pushing for relief for farmers to get better, nutritious food for Canadian families that need it right now?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 4:00:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing that always strikes me about the Conservatives when we are talking about people not being able to pay their bills is that they are very concerned that big oil is not getting enough of a free deal. Nine billion dollars is the figure for one year of climate damage in British Columbia. How many farms were wrecked by climate damage? We never hear the Conservatives worry about that, because they are focused on big oil. They believe that pollution should be free and that the big oil companies should be able to jack as much CO2 into the air as possible.
My issue with the carbon tax is that the Liberals do not seem to have a climate plan to go with it, so they are raising the money. I find it really concerning that when we are talking about price gouging and about bringing this forward so the producers are heard at the table, the Conservatives want to talk about the interests of big oil.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 5:19:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are going to vote in favour of this motion I will repeat again. The member has probably heard it 30 other times today. Did I say it clear enough?
I have reservations and concerns. My concern is that the NDP have prejudged the outcome before the committee has had the chance to do the study. That is a fair and reasonable concern. Let us bring the witnesses to committee. Let us let the committee actually do the work it is supposed to do. If the results show that the carbon tax or other items in our supply chains are responsible for the higher food prices, fair enough.
I challenge the New Democrats. If it is the carbon tax, if it comes out that way and that is the factor, will they bring these guys down? Will they quit supporting the Liberals? Will they actually take—
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 6:39:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, some months ago, back in the spring, I asked the government about carbon capture, utilization and storage and its position on this. Sixteen months ago I introduced a bill into the House of Commons that was proposing a carbon capture, utilization and storage system for Canada that matched what happened in the U.S. Our trade partner in CUSMA actually has a 45Q regime that incents carbon capture, utilization and storage.
Finally, after much consultation, the government decided to move forward on this incentive to decarbonize Canada's economy by including it in its annual federal budget last spring. Here we are, six months later, and where are we on carbon capture, utilization and storage in this country? We are in the same place, really.
In July, the government proposed its latest words on moving these measures forward. I say “words” because the proposal includes new, novel and undefined measures such as a knowledge-sharing agreement requirement, which is undefined and yet incurring penalties of up to $2 million per occurrence if not obeyed. It is a document written without seriousness.
The government has repeatedly shown its lack of gravitas in its approach to this technology and its development, which the rest of the world has addressed more quickly, recognizing, as the International Energy Agency does, that the world's path to a decarbonized economy and decarbonized future is not possible without carbon capture, utilization and storage. It is a Canadian shame.
Canada was, until recently, the country where the technology had advanced most quickly. Industry had spent billions advancing the technology. Governments, provincial and federal, had contributed significant amounts to this advance. What changed? What took away Canadian technology leadership in carbon capture, utilization and storage development? It was tax incentives by our two main environment competitors, which are the United States and Norway, both of which produce a significant amount of hydrocarbon.
Since the U.S. instituted its 45Q regime to incent CCUS technology development, our Canadian corporate leaders have moved their developments to opportunities in the United States. Carbon Engineering, the world leader in direct air capture, now works primarily south of our border. The world does not stand still or even stall the way the current government does.
The 45Q regime in the U.S. has recently been updated in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act so that tax incentives further encourage technological advances and decarbonization. That is the goal. The current government is still ragging the puck.
One key difference in structure between the design in the rest of the world and the approach the government is proposing is the inclusion of enhanced oil recovery. Here is what the government is missing in this ideological, wrong-headed, prejudicial approach to CCUS: Enhanced oil recovery produces hydrocarbons with a full life-cycle carbon footprint lower than newly drilled wells. There is an internal mental block holding the government back from decarbonizing our energy in Canada. It cannot continue to pretend it is even concerned about decarbonization.
I call on the government to stop sitting on its hands and to move forward with a revised, effective and accountable CCUS incentive mechanism.
528 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 6:42:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians know that climate change is real. Canadians also know that climate action is hard. In Canada and around the world, climate action is no longer a matter of political debate or personal conviction. It is an existential challenge. That means it is also an economic necessity.
Our climate plan is driven by our national price on pollution, the smartest and most effective incentive for climate action, and by a new Canada growth fund, which will help attract the billions of dollars in private capital that we need to transform our economy at speed and scale. Smart climate investments today are good for Canadian workers, good for the Canadian economy and good for the planet. With the largest mobilization of global capital since the industrial revolution already under way, Canada has a chance to become a leader in the clean energy of the future.
Climate change is the greatest long-term threat of our time. Taking action on climate change is the greatest opportunity for our economy, and we can create well-paying sustainable jobs across our country. Carbon capture, utilization and storage is about reducing emissions. CCUS also plays a critical role in Canada's economic and environmental future as we strive to meet our objective of net zero by 2050. However, I want to be clear that it is not the only tool to be used; it is one of the tools in our tool box.
In budget 2021, our government proposed an investment tax credit for CCUS projects with the goal of reducing emissions by at least 15 megatonnes of CO2 annually. Then, after consulting with the public, stakeholders and the provinces on the design of the investment tax credit for CCUS, budget 2022 proposed a refundable investment tax credit for businesses that incur eligible CCUS expenses, starting in 2022 to contribute to our goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.
The new investment tax credit is intended to be available for a broad range of CCUS applications across different industrial subsectors, such as concrete, plastics and fuels. They include blue hydrogen projects and direct air capture projects. It is not intended that the tax credit be available for enhanced oil recovery projects.
A CCUS strategy for Canada will ensure Canada is well positioned to enable meaningful climate action, to ensure we create well-paying sustainable jobs for communities and people and to support a more circular economy.
411 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
