SoVote

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 10:59:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about fuel, gasoline and the like, today, I would like to ask you a question. It is a rhetorical question; I am not expecting an answer. Do you have a car? I am sure you do. I am sure you drive on two-lane highways and three-lane highways. If you are like me, you see, every now and then, a car that moves from one lane to the next and then back again, sometimes without even signalling. That is frustrating and it is dangerous. I will come back to that car later. The official opposition has a gift for holding two contradictory positions at the same time. It is a clever balancing act, and, in some ways, I am impressed. I find it disturbing in a way, but it is clever in its own way. The official opposition can argue both sides at once. It is as though it wants to have its cake and eat it too. I will give an example. We hear, every day, that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. In other words, it is caused by a record expansion of the money supply during the pandemic. The next day, the official opposition says inflation is cost-driven, principally by the price on carbon, not by any other factor impacting costs, like supply chain bottlenecks and so forth. I will give a second example. The official opposition gets up and says that the horrible drug problem we have in this country is because of the low price of street drugs, which has created high demand. However, when we talk about the high price of gasoline, somehow that does not curtail demand. In other words, it seems like, according to the opposition, only those with addictions respond to the price mechanism. There are contradictions everywhere. I will give a third example. The official opposition has been for the price on carbon, and then it has been against the price on carbon. I would suggest that every Conservative MP in the House owes their constituents an explanation as to why they ran on a platform to impose a price on carbon yet abandoned that platform commitment very shortly afterward. They call the price on carbon a tax, but we are in an alternate reality here. The price on carbon is simply a transfer. They then call the clean fuel standard a second tax, but when it comes to the clean fuel standard, the government is not imposing any kind of charge. The clean fuel standard is not a tax; it is a regulation. This brings me to the fourth example of Conservative contradiction. For years, the Conservatives have been saying no to a price on carbon. That was before the 2021 election platform. Before that, they traditionally favoured regulation, as if regulations do not have a cost. They would say that they are not for a price on carbon, and that they prefer regulation, because, they say, there is no cost to regulation. It is very simple. It is like a magic wand. They will combat climate change through the magic wand of regulation, which, according to the Conservatives, costs nothing. The clean fuel standard is a regulation. No money goes to the government. It will result in the transfer of credits between companies, but only if a company does not meet its intensity target. It is not even clear how many credits a company or an enterprise would have to purchase, and since we do not know how many credits a company would have to purchase in 2030, we do not know what the cost impact of the purchase of those credits will be. The clean fuel standard is something Conservatives should approve of and support, because it will drive innovation. We know that Conservatives like that, because, as the solution to climate change, they always invoke the magic word “technology”, which again they imply is something free. Technological advancement and innovation are often the result of government regulation and involve costs for research and development in order to arrive at new, more efficient technologies. The next thing they will be telling us, and this will be another contradiction in their discourse, is that the methane regulations the government brought into force, which are meant to stop fugitive and controlled methane emissions, are a tax, which they are not. We are in Alice in Wonderland; it is all sleight of hand. Then there is the Conservatives' fake math. They are pulling numbers out of thin air and omitting to tie them to specific dates. Do members remember “Triple, Triple, Triple” on the Conservatives' hit parade? That ditty seems to have fallen from the number one spot recently. It made it seem like the price was going up in multiples overnight, but the price on carbon goes up only $15 per tonne annually, or 30% from 2022 to 2023, not 300%. I think the Conservatives got the decimal point wrong. It will go up in a declining percentage every year: 23% from 2023 to 2024, then 19% from 2024 to 2025. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which is no friend of the Liberal government, estimates that, after the 2023 increase on the price on carbon, the total impact of carbon pricing will amount to an extra 14¢ per litre, not “triple, triple, triple". There is another thing the opposition omits, and that is the rebate, which is what makes the price on carbon a transfer. Milton Friedman, who agreed with the price on carbon, did in fact include a rebate in his formula. We know that the leader of the official opposition is a disciple of Milton Friedman. I think Milton Friedman would be very upset, if he were alive today, to know that the leader of the official opposition here in Canada is against a market mechanism like the price on carbon. Once the clean fuel standard regulations take full effect, according to figures the PBO obtained from Environment and Climate Change Canada, they will increase the price of gas and diesel by as much as 17¢ per litre, but that is in 2030. Conservatives never mention the date when they get up and say, “triple, triple, triple". They forget there is a calendar date that is far off into the future. There is another point I would like to make about the PBO study, which would be apparent to anyone who has studied economics. I do not know how many people on that side have studied economics, but I am sure many other people in the House have. The PBO's analysis is based on what is called “static” economics. It does an analysis based on the idea that everything else stays the same, so it does not take into account innovation, or the fact that companies innovate to meet the intensity target and will not have to buy credits, and so on. It is not real-time economics, and I would say the official opposition needs to get with real time. I will come back to the big, blue car on the highway. Conservatives are for a price on carbon, then are against it. Conservatives are for regulations that drive innovation, then are against them. That big, blue gas guzzler that zigzags incessantly across the highway needs to pick a lane.

1237 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Jun/1/23 11:09:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was quite a show we just had from the member. In my province, we have regulated gas pricing, so we understand locally just how much the taxes and regulations cost consumers. Right now before the province, we see a request to raise the carbon tax by 3.25¢. What is more interesting is that the clean fuel standard is going to add 7.5¢ a litre on July 1. This is the headline of the CBC back home right now: “New Brunswick consumers may face double carbon charges on July 1”. The total is 12.4¢ with the HST, because, of course, with the Liberals it is a tax and another tax, a tax on a tax. My last point is this. The CTF, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has said that the tax will be 14¢, and by 2030 will be three times that, at 41¢. That is where we get the “triple, triple, triple”. With the Liberals, it is all taxes, more taxes and taxes on top of them all the time. What does the member have to say about that?

194 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/1/23 11:10:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I go back to the point that, unlike Milton Friedman's price on carbon model, ours includes a dividend to individual taxpayers, and that is what makes the price on carbon essentially a transfer. That is what I would say in response to the member's question.

49 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/1/23 11:10:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer admits that the clean fuel regulations could have a minor impact on some households, especially the most disadvantaged. I would like my colleague to tell us his thoughts on the official languages action plan launched a month ago, which announces $700 million in funding over five years for Quebec's anglophone community. That is staggering. Does my colleague truly think that Quebec's anglophone community needs this money? Could this amount not be better spent on helping offset the possible impact of this tax, for example?

93 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/1/23 11:11:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a firm believer in the official languages action plan, but we are talking about fuel today, not official language communities. I make no apologies for being in favour of funding to help official language minority communities across the country.

43 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:12:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by my Liberal Party colleague fascinating. He seemed to be suggesting that the Liberal government's record on greenhouse gas emissions is a good one. However, in 2021, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 2%. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by 14% in Canada since 1990 despite the climate emergency. Why is his government not doing better? It is incapable of meeting the Paris Agreement targets.

74 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/1/23 11:12:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would point out that, between 2019 and 2021, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada went down. Sure, they went up in 2021, but, as everyone knows, we were emerging from the pandemic, and the economy was recovering. We have to keep doing more, though. Clearly, the government's efforts since being elected in 2015 are starting to pay off. These things do not happen overnight, as the member should know. However, I am very optimistic about the future. For example, sales of zero-emission vehicles are on the rise. Demand is outstripping supply. That is why I am very optimistic about the future.

105 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 11:13:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is high praise, coming from the masters of showmanship, to say that one has put on a good show, but it was a very good speech. We have been talking about the cost of our climate action plan and the rebates, etc. I was just reading a peer-reviewed study, based on science, and it showed that 30% of the total burned forest area in western Canada and the United States between 1986 and 2021 can be traced back to 88 major fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers. I am wondering if you can comment on the cost of inaction as well as the price of pollution.

110 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/1/23 11:14:08 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member that she is to address questions and comments through the Speaker and not directly to the member. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis has the floor.

33 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/1/23 11:14:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, any kind of an analysis around environmental measures, including the price on carbon, must take into account the effects of doing nothing.

24 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/1/23 11:14:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the champion of the environment, the hon. member for Repentigny. I am going to do something I rarely do. I am going to make an aside, because today is my son’s birthday; my loyal equerry is 22 years old. My son is studying political science, and I thought that the best gift I could give him was to use one of his university papers. No one will be surprised to hear that the paper was on populism. Everyone will see me coming right away: I feel like the motion before us here today is more populist rhetoric than actual political debate. I would like to use the reading grid my son presented in his paper. He gives the simplest definition of populism as being the act of developing a simplistic solution to a complex problem. In my opinion, saying that the carbon tax is responsible for today’s inflation is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Once again based on the vast knowledge of my son, Émile Simard, populism can also be defined as the political tendency to create division, to simplify and to exacerbate differences of opinion. Later on I will talk about some of the discourse used by the leader of the official opposition. Members will once again see this tendency to create division, to simplify and to exacerbate differences of opinion. Populism can also be defined as the discourse and behaviours of persons who use rhetoric that combines reality with demagoguery, and that turn the people against ideological adversaries or existing institutions. Lastly, it can be said that all forms of populism berate institutions that do not sufficiently take popular aspirations into account. Populism caricatures political adversaries as elites who are not interested in taking the people’s ideas and popular wisdom into account. Let us start there and analyze the proposal contained in the Conservatives’ motion today. Populism revolves around populist themes. One of these themes we often see relates to purchasing power. This is telling people that, thanks to the political action of one party, they will have more money in their pockets. The notion of purchasing power is the focus of our Conservative colleagues’ motion. Another populist theme is mistrust of science. Climate change was made up by scientists. Another theme is the irrational need to defend the fossil fuel industry, which, as we know, contributes significantly to climate change. The Conservatives have tabled a motion here today that is textbook populism. It uses the inflationary context to advance their goal of antagonizing the members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois, who recognize that measures must be put in place to fight climate change. They are also trying to advance the agenda of the oil companies. Let us be honest for a moment and say, right from the start, that those who are not populist and remain rational understand that there is no second carbon tax. What the Conservatives are talking about are the clean fuel regulations, which aim to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels. As a result, we can say that the Conservative discourse linking this policy to the current purchasing power crisis is populist; it is doomsday rhetoric aimed at demonizing the energy transition. Let us say right from the start that the carbon tax that the Conservatives are talking about does not affect Quebec, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. It must also be said that, for many years, the Conservatives have demonized the carbon tax. That was already the case under Mr. Harper. The goal is to score political points in the short term, which is another basic characteristic of populism. It must also be said that, at the last Conservative convention, 54% of Conservative Party members rejected the existence of climate change. So more than half of Conservative Party members do not believe that climate change is real. To counterbalance that, I recall that the hon. member for Durham, the former Conservative leader, had said that he wanted to put a price on carbon. I do not know what led to the carbon tax becoming a key issue for the Conservative Party. At the last election, we had a leader who said that we should still have a tax on pollution. In my view, the Conservatives are using the Parliamentary Budget Officer because it suits them today, but we rarely hear them when the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us about a phenomenon as important as the fiscal imbalance. I rarely hear the Conservatives say that they will use an opposition day to study this scourge of the Canadian federation that is the fiscal imbalance. Of course, if we synthesize all that, we are faced with simplistic solutions to the complex problem of inflation. There is a problem that none of my Conservative colleagues have mentioned. I do not want to address the real problem, because then I would be guilty of populism myself. The problem no one has mentioned is the problem of Canada, which continues to increase the production of dirty oil and tar sands, an unconventional and polluting type of oil. This is the problem we need to tackle today in this federation if we want to fight climate change, which will have a considerable impact on the economy. What my Conservative friends also often forget is that, historically, what has contributed the most to price fluctuations are fluctuations in the price of oil. We have seen that on numerous occasions. The gluttonous oil companies, which are forever increasing their margins, are earning record profits. We saw that during and after the pandemic. We need to ask these gluttonous oil companies, which are earning record profits, to make an extra effort, and not blame the carbon tax. This distorts reality. There are ways to fight inflation. I will mention one in particular: increasing retirees' fixed incomes. We have been calling on the government to increase the OAS and GIS for quite some time now. I would have liked to hear my Conservative colleagues talk about that. This brings me to the favourite topic of the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition. I have heard the opposition leader denounce “wokeness” on numerous occasions. On a trip to Quebec, he said that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party are woke parties. Here is a quote that made me laugh. While in Montreal, the Conservative leader said: The Liberals and their woke buddies from the Plateau Mont-Royal are waging a war on cars. So, having listened to the common sense of the people from the Quebec City region, allow me to send an equally clear message: A Poilievre government will not fund a third link without lanes reserved for cars. “Good common sense” is a populist term. When someone uses those words, they are usually a populist. Let us not forget the ultimate populist theme: driving. The woke are against driving. What is really funny is that the leader of Conservative Party was rebuked by Quebec's premier, who said that it was not the Liberal federal government that put an end to the third link, it was Quebec. The leader of the Conservative Party was rebuked. I will conclude by saying that I am going to use a little populist discourse myself. Those we consider woke in Quebec are generally those who are against Bill 21, the secularism law, and Bill 96, the French language law. I know that the leader of the Conservative Party is against both these laws. Is the Conservative Party a woke party because it is against Bills 21 and 96? That is what I want to know. Perhaps my son can give me an answer on his next birthday.

1316 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 11:24:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I find interesting in what my colleague across the aisle says is that, in his own province of Quebec, the federal tax on pollution does not apply. Quebec has its own carbon pricing. It is a system that works very well. I congratulate them. However, what we have heard from the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent raises several questions. The only thing that applies to the province of Quebec is the issue of affordability, which is a concern for all Canadians. My question concerns affordability. When measures were proposed here in the House to offer dental care for children, subsidies during the pandemic or grocery rebates, the Conservatives always voted against them. In this context, does my colleague find that there is a contradiction in the way the Conservatives voted?

134 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/1/23 11:25:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Conservatives' proposal is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Where I disagree somewhat with my Liberal colleague is that, in my view, the best way to fight inflation is to support those who do not earn very much. I immediately think of retirees. The Liberal Party has never wanted to increase the OAS and GIS. It created two classes of seniors. The best way to fight inflation would be to support seniors. I also do not agree with him on the dental care system, which creates a lot of unfairness in Quebec because we already have a dental care system. We lose big under in this system. I do not completely agree with him, but I am prepared to say that the Conservatives have a simplistic solution to a serious problem.

141 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/1/23 11:26:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague said that the Conservative Party is the party of populism. Could he define the word “populism”? A large number of Canadians elected the Conservative Party to represent them in the House of Commons. Now, a second carbon tax is about to be forced on Canadians. Another tax on clean electricity regulation is going to be imposed in July, and yet another tax on electricity is coming later. Among the Government of Canada's many proposals, is there a tax on logging? We now know that trees store carbon and release it into the environment. Would my colleague agree with me on that point?

110 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/1/23 11:27:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I entirely follow where my colleague is going with this. I have never heard of a tax that would apply to the forestry sector because a tree sequesters carbon. He asked me to provide a definition of populism. To me, it is quite clear. It refers to politicians who try to oversimplify certain issues, sow division and create antagonism without listening to reason, to common sense, to science. The science shows that climate change is going to cost us a fortune. If we listen to the science, then we should try to prepare for this looming threat and put in place measures such as carbon pricing. It is as simple as that.

118 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/1/23 11:28:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative motion seems to conflate two different concepts in policy: taxes and regulations. I cannot think of why my hon. colleagues on the Conservative side would want to try to confuse Canadians, and I cannot imagine that they do not know the difference between taxes and regulations, so I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why the Conservatives seem intent on confusing these two concepts.

71 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/1/23 11:29:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to be clear, the Bloc Québécois's objective is to stand up for the interests of Quebec in the House. I often get the impression that the objective of the Conservative Party, which is the bloc of the west, is to stand up for the interests of the oil companies in this chamber. The Conservatives often try to distort reality by claiming carbon pricing is one of the causes of inflation, since carbon pricing has repercussions for big oil. That is unbelievably stupid.

89 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/1/23 11:29:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I will say that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion. First, we are not in favour of cancelling the clean fuel regulations. In addition, we do not approve of the Conservative grandstanding on the important issue of inflation and the rising cost of living. We have solutions that would be suitable for Quebec and Canada and that would not prevent them from addressing climate change. It bears repeating that there is no second carbon tax. My colleague and I have said it twice. It is the clean fuel regulations, or CFR, which are intended to reduce the carbon intensity of liquid fossil fuels and which must come into force on July 1, 2023. Four measures were proposed by Canada to achieve a target of 40% reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels. The CFR and carbon pricing, the elimination of coal and the regulation of methane are all important. The CFR is a measure that focuses on the transportation sector, which is very good since it is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada. Unfortunately, emissions are rising. The Conservative outrage stems first and foremost from their total aversion to policies aimed at putting our society on a path of energy progress. They are against that. Indeed, the CFR could have a regressive effect because lower-income households allocate a greater proportion to transportation expenses than high-income households. However, what is not being said in the discussion is that the analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer focuses on the projected cost in 2030 in a scenario in which the CFR is not implemented. What is needed by 2030, and it is needed even sooner, is a change in our behaviour. That is the idea, that is the objective. By consuming less, the environmental impacts will be proportional. We will pay less because we will be consuming less and we will change our habits. There is no other choice. Things cannot continue as they are now. With their motion, in a truly apocalyptic tone, the Conservatives are weaponizing data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer by applying their mantra of everything to oil and gas. As I said earlier, this measure aims to send a signal to the market to promote innovation, and I would even add without delay. We are going through major upheavals at the moment. It is all interrelated, interdependent. The global economy is changing. Historically, the greatest factor in price instability has been the price of oil. The best way to protect against that instability is to move to post-oil as soon as possible. Indeed, as Canadian oil sands production increases, the role of unconventional oil in the Canadian economy increases. However, it is unconventional products that result in economic costs because they are more polluting than conventional oil. The more the share of bitumen increases, the greater the costs of the CFR. Thus, conversely, costs can be saved if the share of bitumen declines. Provinces with economies that are less dependent on fossil fuels are less affected, as is the case in Quebec. The result of this Quebec policy foresees a reduction of 1.78 megatonnes in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. That is the equivalent of 512,000 light vehicles. That is something; it is a step forward. On the other hand, the discourse from the Conservatives represents a step back. It links these regulatory efforts to the current purchasing power crisis. That is doomsday rhetoric, and I would even say rather misguided. Why? Conservative thinking does not take into account the economic benefits of the energy transition, as it is that unavoidable step that allows us to consider a future for our society and future generations. The Conservatives ignore the fact that the costs incurred by environmental policies, such as the CFR, are inextricably linked to our energy choices and policies. To achieve a transformation, to change, tools are needed, incentives are needed, efforts are needed. Human beings are made that way. That is how we are made. As an example, what did we do to curb smoking? Once all the facts were on the table, the research was there, the devastating findings on cancer were there, multiple deterrents were implemented and they worked. It took time. It did not happen in 5 years; it may have taken 10 years. It took time, but there are fewer cancers. I will cite an example from Europe. The bonus-malus solution for large engines in Europe gives hope for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. A cost-benefit study of the bonus-malus provision in France shows that the market share of new low-consumption vehicles increased from 30% in 2007 to 45% in 2008 and 56% in 2009. Let us imagine the result 12 years later. It works but, yes, arm-twisting is sometimes needed to move forward. Levers are needed to speed up the development of new technologies and, at the same time, stimulate demand for clean fuels. I want to briefly mention New Economy Canada, which was on Parliament Hill this week. The representatives of this organizations came to present to us Quebec and Canadian innovations that will structure the new economy of the future, and they are impressive. We ware talking about companies that fully align with the goal of net-zero emissions and that care about the just transition and ties with indigenous communities. Everything is there in every sector a person can think of. The climate policy is costing so much because Canada continues to increase the production of oil from the tar sands, so-called dirty oil because it is unconventional and causes more pollution. Pollution has a cost, as does inaction. Inflation affects purchasing power and money. Let us talk about money. As we speak, there are forest fires raging across the country. The resulting distress and destruction are overwhelming. Climate change does in fact have an impact on people's health and safety, even though the Conservatives sometimes act as though it is no big deal. Have the Conservatives forgotten the sad fate of the 700 people who lost their lives in Lytton in the summer of 2021 or the devastation in the Fort McMurray area? In 2018, the World Health Organization identified climate change as the greatest threat to health in the 21st century. The disasters I just mentioned bring with them trauma, the displacement of families, material losses, and the list goes on. The impacts of the climate crisis, which is largely attributable to our dependence on fossil fuels, are such that the reinsurer Swiss Re estimated the cost of natural disasters in 2021 at $320 billion, up 24% over 2020. What does all this mean for our health? The medical costs associated with air pollution are high. According to a 2017 estimate by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, these costs totalled between $26 billion and $48 billion in 2015. An in-depth analysis done by Health Canada in 2019 found that air pollution causes 14,600 premature deaths every year, at a cost of $114 billion, or 7% of Canada's GDP. That is significant. I am a little confused by the Conservative demagoguery. Their party seems to embody one single objective: to maintain, and even grow, a lethal industry that is shamefully making the rich even richer, to the detriment of any collective progress offered by a genuine energy transition. This budget leans heavily on green this and green that, on the magical—and, as I see it, smoke-blowing—technology known as carbon capture and storage, a Trojan horse if ever there was one. It is anything but efficient. Independent expert analyses confirm without a doubt that capture and storage is inefficient, costly and impossible to implement in time, not to mention a tool invented by oil companies themselves to make money. Conservative Party members are not knights in shining armour come to the aid of workers and citizens. They are shills for the ruling Canadian oil and gas elite, which is laser-focused on producing more, exporting more and sucking up more public money to stay afloat, all while greenwashing to the max. When people are in denial, they lose sight of the truth. This stubborn rejection of change has to stop. The longer we wait, the higher the financial, human, environmental, economic and social costs. Sometimes changing one's mindset requires therapy. Summer is coming, and we will not be here for three months. I think this is a good time to start therapy.

1440 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/1/23 11:39:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc member. Many organizations see the deforestation happening across the world as the primary cause of the rise in CO₂ in the atmosphere. In 2019, the government said that it was going to plant two billion trees over the next 10 years. It is now 2023, and the government has only planted 60 million trees. This is hardly the way to reach a goal of planting two billion trees in Canada. Is this a success or a win in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions into Canada's atmosphere?

98 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/1/23 11:40:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Trees capture CO2 up to about the age of 70. There is some carbon capture going on there, but the problem is that, when it was announced in 2019 that two billion trees would be planted, the Trans Mountain pipeline was under construction. Trans Mountain far exceeds the carbon that two billion trees could ever capture. Of course, we should plant trees. That said, I do not believe anyone is foolish enough to believe that two billion trees will make up for greenhouse gas emissions.

110 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 204