44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, what the member does not tell Canadians is that in the last federal election, every Conservative member supported the Conservative election platform that clearly indicated to Canadians that a Conservative government would support a price on pollution. That means a carbon tax. On the one hand, during an election campaign, the Conservatives made a commitment to Canada, saying they supported a price on pollution. Today, they have reversed their position. Now they say they do not support a price on pollution.
I wonder if the member would be transparent and apologize to Canadians for making a promise then and now saying the Conservatives no longer support what they told Canadians.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 2:59:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, instead of fighting inflation and making life more affordable for Canadians, what do the Conservatives want to do? They want to make it harder for Canadians to save for their retirement. They want to make it harder for Canadians who lose their jobs, and instead of flighting climate change, they want to make pollution free again.
On just about every measure that Canadians care about, the Conservatives are absent. We will always have Canadians' backs.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:00:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has made a suggestion that we have not hit a target. The target that we have set is for 2030, so if she has a DeLorean and a flux capacitor, I invite her jump in and travel in time.
The reality is that we are on track to reduce our emissions because of the investments we are making. We are bringing pollution down, and we found a way to make it more affordable for families at the same time. Every step of the way, we will do what it takes to protect our environment for our kids and our grandkids and to advance measures that support affordability at the same time.
This is the path forward. If the Conservatives do not join us on it, they will enjoy sitting in opposition for a very long time.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what are the member's thoughts in regard to the Conservative election platform where they said that they actually supported a price on pollution?
That was in the last election and not that long ago. Her party said that it supported a price on pollution. Now it seems to have changed its mind. Can the member explain why the Conservatives have changed their minds?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 5:13:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the climate crisis. In no way would I want to give an impression that I would not support a price on pollution. I was just trying to help the member—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, speaking of pollution, there is perhaps a bit of dilution there as well from my colleague.
I am glad the member raised the issue of the COVID spending because I had it in my speech. The Liberals did not want to have any accountability for 21 months. Imagine, an endless amount of spending with no accountability or bringing in any of the parties in opposition to vote on it, but we stopped that.
I did not say that in my speech, and so I am really glad that he had the opportunity to ask me that question. We did put a stop to that. They did have to bring it to the House. We did agree on the spending that needed to be there, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has now pointed out that, of the $500 billion they spent, $200 billion of that had nothing to do with the COVID spending.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. It is a question that has been asked of a lot of Conservatives and one that never gets answered. I hope the member can address the question, as opposed to just rambling on about something else, which is what every other Conservative does.
When the member ran in the last election, he ran on a price on pollution. His leader at the time, the member for Durham, put in the Conservative platform that they would have a price on pollution. How can the Conservatives, just a year later, be so critical of pricing pollution? Can he please shed some light on this question and not completely disregard it?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 6:34:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by addressing the question of putting a price on pollution. This is something that the member opposite will certainly be familiar with, because he vigorously campaigned for it in the last election. This is also something that we are familiar with in British Columbia, where we have had a price on pollution since 2008. In the time since it has been implemented, not only have emissions per capita gone down, but we have actually led the country in economic growth. The clean-tech sector in British Columbia, for example, produces billions of dollars in revenue each and every single year and provides tens of thousands of good-paying, sustainable jobs.
In the last three years, the price on pollution in British Columbia has gone up by about two cents per litre despite gas prices going up by more than a dollar at times. This is a reflection of disruptions in the supply chain due to the pandemic and more recently due to the illegal war in Ukraine. While the Conservatives have tried to argue that the federal carbon price is driving inflation, they know that they are ignoring 98% of the real problem.
Further, taking aggressive action on climate change has become an economic necessity in itself. We have to act now to prevent further damages. Canada is confronted with more and more extreme climate events, such as floods, hurricanes and wildfires. The reality is that we can lead the fight against climate change, and we can do it in a way that creates good-paying jobs and new businesses for Canadians.
Our government also understands and appreciates the fact that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note that our plan is revenue-neutral and that, through the climate action incentive, life is actually made more affordable because of the carbon price for eight out of 10 Canadian families.
We do understand that Canadians are having issues making ends meet. We are worried as our country's economy faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenges of high inflation and higher interest rates. We understand these concerns and we are all experiencing these challenges alongside our constituents. We feel the pain of inflation when we go to the grocery store, fill up our tanks and, of course, when we pay our rent.
With regard to grocery store prices in particular, we have specific concerns, which is why earlier this year the Minister of Innovation wrote to the Competition Bureau to make sure it was using all of its tools to detect and deter any unlawful behaviours that might be leading to higher prices or profiteering in the food sector.
In addition, we have provided targeted supports to Canadians through the fall economic statement and the budget to ensure that we give the help that Canadians need, in particular, to those Canadians who need it the most. A good example of this is the doubling of the GST credit. This is a significant investment of $2.5 billion in support that will help 11 million households and more than 50% of our seniors. I actually want to thank the member opposite for supporting this important measure.
We know that there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and then thrive in the years ahead. This is because our unemployment rate continues to be near its record low, and our country has an AAA credit rating. We also have the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year, and the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. In fact, those advantages increased over the course of the pandemic, thanks to our strong fiscal leadership. As well, our health outcomes and job recovery rates are significantly better than those in the United States, and that is going to put us in an even better position going forward.
674 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 6:54:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my friend opposite for raising these questions. I used to represent the people of her riding as a municipal city councillor some 23 years ago in Nanaimo. In fact, I sat on the advisory committee to the environment there.
The member and I have had some good discussions around various environmental issues, including climate change. I am glad we have a further opportunity to share some time in the chamber today.
The federal government has committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. At the same time, we are increasing investments in clean technology and clean energy production. I cannot cover the entirety of our plan to fight climate change and grow the economy in four minutes, but I would encourage anyone who is interested to read my reports on climate change and the environment and growing the economy, both of which are available at terrybeechmp.ca.
It is also important to note that we are not just committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, but we have actually accelerated our previous timeline for doing so from 2025 to 2023, which is a matter of weeks away. In fact, we have already taken action to phase out nine tax measures supporting the fossil fuel sector to date.
In budget 2022, as another example, the government committed to eliminating the flow-through share regime for fossil fuel activities. This means tax benefits available to companies and their investors will no longer be available after March 31, 2023, which is less than four months from now.
At COP27 last month in Egypt, Canadian representatives also fought to prevent other countries from backing down on phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels and coal, which are still the single largest contributor to CO2 emissions globally. We are also on track to eliminate coal-fired energy in Canada within the next seven years.
The reality is that our government has taken concrete action to fight pollution and to produce cleaner air for everyone. This is also why we introduced a price on carbon pollution across Canada in 2019. My friend opposite would be familiar with this approach, as B.C. has had a price on pollution since 2008. In fact, the carbon price has not only helped lower emissions per capita, but B.C. has enjoyed one of the fastest-growing economies in the country since it was implemented.
An important part of this economic growth story is that a majority of Canada's clean-tech sector is actually located in British Columbia and accounts for billions of dollars in revenue each and every single year and tens of thousands of good, sustainable, high-paying jobs. It is a good analogy for how successful Canada can be as more of the world demands clean and sustainable sources of energy and solutions for fighting climate change.
There really is no doubt that our approach is working. Industries are already being encouraged to become more emissions-efficient and to use cleaner technologies. This in turn encourages the development of new and innovative approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using energy more efficiently. This in turn creates new business development opportunities.
The fact is that we cannot have a credible plan to grow our economy without also having a credible plan to protect the environment and to fight climate change. That said, we also know that we need to work with industry to find economically viable solutions and technologies.
Carbon capture, utilization and storage, CCUS for short, is an important tool for reducing emissions in high-emitting sectors, especially if other pathways to reducing emissions are limited or unavailable. I would note that many respected global organizations support CCUS development, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris-based International Energy Agency. It will help not just the oil and gas sector to reduce emissions, but emission-intensive sectors like steel production, cement and other emission-intensive industries as well.
665 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
