44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that if Canada wants to get serious about meeting its emission reduction targets in the timeline, even in the inadequate timeline, that has been promised by the government, we have to see more projects getting built. The proof is in the pudding.
The investments are not there, and the construction is not happening. We are not going to see infrastructure that reduces greenhouse gas emissions if it is not getting built. Announcing it does not do the job, and so far all we have are announcements.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:09:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this past week, Germany inaugurated its first liquefied natural gas terminal. Germany started construction after the war in Ukraine began on February 24 to get off Russian gas. Before Russia's war on Ukraine, Germany had no LNG terminals. It took Germany 194 days to approve and build this new LNG terminal in the North Sea port of Wilhelmshaven. It took 194 days, and four more are on the way shortly.
Germany has a stronger set of environmental standards than Canada, and Germany has reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than Canada. Germany is also led by a left of centre Social Democratic chancellor, and its minister of economic affairs and climate action is a Green Party minister. Our government needs to ask itself how Germany can approve and build a new LNG terminal in 194 days, while it takes a decade or more to approve and build a single LNG terminal in this country.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:21:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the world's wealthy gather for the COP conference, burning massive amounts of jet fuel to get there, what is becoming clear is that the government does not have a climate plan; it has a tax plan. Its plan has failed to reach a single solidarity greenhouse gas emissions target and Canada now ranks 58th out of 64 countries on climate performance. This is after it has hit Canadians with high taxes. It plans to triple the tax, tripling down on failure.
Will the Liberals cancel the carbon tax and come up with a real environmental plan?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:24:24 p.m.
- Watch
Revenue neutral, Mr. Speaker? It is not neutral for taxpayers who will pay thousands of dollars more in the tax than they get back in any rebates, according to the government's own Parliamentary Budget Officer.
If the government really wanted to fight greenhouse gas emissions, it would approve projects that do that. For example, there were 15 LNG projects proposed when the government took office. Not a single one has been built. The only one that is under construction was approved by the previous Conservative government and it required subsequent governments to exempt it from the carbon tax in order for it to be economical and to speed up its approval by ignoring Bill C-69.
Will the government get out of the way and let our projects go ahead to protect the earth?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 2:42:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to point out to the hon. member, the report did not take into account some of our most recent actions, but I agree. All of us on this side of the House do. We need to do more.
That is why we are investing $9.1 billion in our emissions reduction plan. We will be capping oil and gas emissions. We will be eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, and we will be challenging the energy sector to invest in reducing pollution and creating the clean economy of tomorrow and the goods jobs of today.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 3:14:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the Thursday question, where I get to ask the government House leader about the business of the House.
Given the news that Canada has come in 58 out of 63 countries, falling behind countries like China and Indonesia, as it relates to its action on reducing global emissions, and since it is clear now that the government's carbon tax is not lowering emissions, will he accept the science and introduce legislation to repeal the carbon tax or, at the very least, freeze the carbon tax and not triple it in the months ahead? As inflation continues to hit almost 7%, will we see any legislation that will repeal some of the wasteful inflationary spending that is causing so much suffering for Canadians? Can we expect either of those two pieces of legislation in the days ahead?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 3:15:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see a vigorous Thursday question, one that contains many different questions. I will be happy to answer some that are outside the usual order for the Thursday question.
Let me start with the good news. The member opposite actually ran on a price on pollution. He believed and campaigned on this, that it was a good idea that could help reduce emissions and make our planet cleaner. I am a little confused because he ran on that and now he says that he does not like the idea. That is something he may want to take up with his constituents. However, we will not cease in our actions to reduce—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am always amazed at the fact that the Liberal members on the other side of the House are still wearing rose-coloured glasses when it comes to fighting climate change. Again, the member bragged about her government's record. It makes absolutely no sense.
Canada is one of the worst countries in the world. It came up in question period. We are ranked 58th out of 60, according to the COP27 criteria. That is outrageous. Canada has invested $8.5 billion U.S. a year in fossil fuels. That is outrageous.
We are the worst country in the G20 in terms of average per capita greenhouse gas emissions, and the only G7 country whose emissions have increased since the Liberals came to power. Yes, I said Liberals, not Conservatives. This is not a joke: Environmentalists miss the Conservatives. That is saying something.
What is the Liberal plan to deal with these challenges?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, we agree that we need to do more on climate change. However, I would say that while the frames on my glasses are red, the lenses are not rose-coloured. I am citing facts today, but I am happy to hear that the Bloc supports us in continuing with the price on pollution and fighting climate change.
We have to do more, but I would point out that our emissions intensity has declined. We would like to say that our emissions have not gone up, and we have met some of the targets, but our economy has also grown significantly over this same time. We have a natural resource-based country, and we are taking action to address that in going to net zero in the oil and gas sector as well as doing other measures. We have to do more, but I am glad to hear that the Bloc is with us on keeping the price on pollution and doing even more.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 6:22:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on the Liberal government's proposed fertilizer policy, which I also raised in the House just before the summer break.
On December 11, 2020, Environment and Climate Change Canada released a document entitled “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy: Canada's strengthened climate plan to create jobs and support people, communities and the planet”. The release of this document was important enough to warrant a press conference by the Prime Minister himself, accompanied by several of his cabinet ministers. At 78 pages, this document is a lot to take in, but what is most concerning is that on page 45 it indicates that the government will “set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers”.
I had the opportunity over the summer to talk with many farmers and farm organizations about this policy, and there are many people with many concerns. Given that fertilizer is already a major input cost for Canadian farms, it follows that farmers already use as little of it as possible and only as much as is necessary. The only way to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% seems to be to reduce fertilizer applications by 30%. Such a policy would be harmful to Canadian farmers, Canadian consumers and the global food supply.
According to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, a typical farm consisting of 1,000 acres of canola and 1,000 acres of wheat would have its annual profits reduced by approximately $40,000 per year if these proposed fertilizer restrictions were implemented. Such a massive reduction would be devastating not only to farmers, but to the many urban entrepreneurs they do business with.
A massive reduction in fertilizer would trigger a massive reduction in crop yields, which would then lead to a dramatic increase in the price of bread and bread products at the grocery story. With inflation and the carbon tax already driving up the price of everything at the grocery store, the last thing Canadian consumers need is for the price of groceries to be driven up even higher by these new fertilizer restrictions.
The problem will not be limited to Canadians, though. Indeed, Canada already produces enough food to feed everyone in this country, and we export the surplus to international markets. As brutal as these fertilizer restrictions may be, we should still be able to produce enough food to feed everyone in this country. The problem is that the amount of food that Canada exports to foreign countries will be dramatically reduced. That means these fertilizer restrictions will simply cause many of the poorest people in the world to starve to death.
Given that the only way to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% seems to be to reduce fertilizer applications by 30%, how will the Liberal government implement this policy? Will it be with a fertilizer tax, similar to the carbon tax, perhaps by restricting the amount of fertilizer that farmers can buy with some sort of licensing program, or is the federal government simply going to nationalize every potash mine in the country and reduce output by 30%?
The Liberal government's plan to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% does not seem to be particularly well thought out, but I would be curious to hear from the hon. parliamentary secretary as to how exactly the government plans to implement this policy.
574 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 6:31:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, we are looking at all solutions for reducing fertilizer emissions.
Over the next decade, the government will invest over $1.5 billion to help Canadian farmers adopt sustainable practices and technologies. That includes $12.8 million to support two living labs in Saskatchewan, which bring farmers and researchers in the field together to develop sustainable practices that work in real farm conditions. Our first-ever indigenous-led living lab will bring together Saskatchewan producers and first nations to explore practices such as crop diversification for pesticide management and landscape diversification.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
