44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/2/23 10:40:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who care deeply about the health of the ocean and understand that we all depend on a thriving ocean ecosystem. The signatories point out that, in 2019, over one million cruise ship passengers travelled off British Columbia on their way to Alaska and these ships generate significant amounts of pollutants that are harmful to human health, aquatic organisms and coastal ecosystems.
Based on this information, the signatories are calling to set standards for cruise ships' sewage and grey water discharges equivalent to, or stronger than, those in Alaska; to designate no discharge zones to stop pollution in marine protected areas, and the entirety of the Salish and Great Bear seas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species; and, finally, to require regular, independent, third-party monitoring while ships are under way to ensure discharge requirements are met.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:45:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my friend from Timmins—James Bay and I agree on many things, but not on everything. We do not agree, for example, that this was a reactive change in Atlantic Canada.
I want to come to the point of my question. We agree on the fact, I believe, that home heating oil is four times the cost to homeowners as natural gas. It is twice as polluting as natural gas. It is disproportionately used by the lowest-income Canadian households. Therefore, one of the biggest wins we can pursue is to have those households convert to electric heat pumps. Of the many things we can do in our arsenal of climate actions, this is a very important thing. It accelerates our journey to our targets and does so in a way that makes life more affordable.
Natural gas users in the rest of Canada, who Conservatives claim are so aggrieved, heat their homes at a quarter of the cost, with half the amount of pollution and still get the climate action incentive rebate so that eight out of 10 households are better off.
I wonder if the member would care to provide an opinion on why it is Conservatives are so concerned about helping the people who least need the help right now?
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:35:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is what I would say to the hon. member. I live in downtown west Toronto. That is where my riding of Davenport is. My constituents want the federal government to keep moving as aggressively and urgently as possible to reduce our emissions to meet our targets. I think they understand that the transition costs money. I think that they are very pleased with our plan for a price on pollution and that anything else we can do to continue to provide support to Canadians as we transition to meet our 2030 and 2050 targets would be supported.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 2:38:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am in the awkward position of contradicting my colleague in the House. In fact, on the other side of the House, they do have a plan. Some of them owe their seats to that plan. It was a carbon tax plan. It was the Erin O'Toole Christmas wish book of green things that the Conservative Party will pick out just in time for the holiday season. Once again, with the price on pollution, we put cold hard cash back into the pockets of Canadians, not the O'Toole Christmas wish book.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 2:39:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the price on pollution puts more money in the pockets of people in the middle class. Second, the price on pollution reduces pollution. Third, climate change is real. We know the Conservative leader does not believe in what I just said. Would my esteemed colleague be willing to invite him to Baie‑Saint‑Paul to see the effects of climate change and meet with my former colleagues from Université Laval for a crash course on why a price on pollution is important?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 2:46:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend across the aisle is forgetting some facts. One is that the price on pollution works in such a way that there is a rebate, where 80% of Canadians get more money back. In fact, an Alberta family of four gets $386 per quarter. It is more than what people pay in terms of the price on pollution.
The pause for three years for home heating oil is based on the specific issue around the cost associated with home heating. It is done in a manner that is consistent with continuing to fight climate change, which is what a price on pollution is all about.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:11:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating is that I am unable to discern from the Conservative Party's rhetoric on this issue whether or not it supports our decision to invest in measures that are going to reduce pollution across Canada and put more money into the pockets of households by getting heat pumps to them.
For awareness, this is the kind of measure that would save my neighbours thousands of dollars every year in reduced energy costs by creating a more efficient solution. It is going to have the same impact for people who use home heating oil right across the country.
Therefore, I respond with this question for my hon. colleague: Does he support the measure that would save money for our residents?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:19:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles heckled us by saying that the carbon tax affected the price on pollution in Quebec.
I have a document that shows the contrary. I seek unanimous consent to table it.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 4:07:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if only I had more time. I could go on about this for a while.
What I will say is this. When we look at the rising costs at the pumps right now, 2¢ a litre over the last year is attributed to a price on pollution and 18¢ a litre is attributed to the wholesale margins, in other words, the profits for the wholesalers. Conservatives should be nine times as outraged by the profits being made by oil companies right now as opposed to the price on pollution, but where are they? They are absolutely silent, never once getting up to talk about the extreme price gouging that is going on. I think it is shameful because they are making an intentional, deliberate attempt to look for political ammunition.
The member said something very good at the beginning of his question, which was that Conservatives like to talk. I would say, yes, they do like to talk, and that is where it ends.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 5:13:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today, but it does feel like Groundhog Day. It must be a dozen times that we have had this same debate on the carbon tax since the member for Carleton became the leader of the Conservative Party. It is ironic because the same party ran on putting a price on pollution in the last election, and now, for probably the twelfth time, we are having this debate about cutting it.
The Conservatives are masquerading about this being an affordability measure and the reason that the cost of living challenges are high right now. However, earlier this week on the finance committee, we heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said that the price on pollution was only responsible for one-sixth of one per cent of the inflation that we are seeing right now in Canada. Also, since 2020, the carbon price on home heating oil has only increased by 12¢ a litre to a total of 14¢ a litre, while the average price for home heating oil is now 75¢ higher.
Canadians are overwhelmingly feeling the impacts of geopolitics and fossil fuel inflation, but this is not because of climate policy. What is boosting the price of fossil fuels in Canada? What is responsible for that other 63¢ a litre, which is five times more than the price on pollution?
That, of course, would be the illegal and unjustified war of aggression that Russia is waging in Ukraine right now and what that has done to global energy markets. It is sad we are not hearing the leader of the Conservatives stand up for Ukraine or in support of the people of Ukraine in repelling this unjustified invasion.
Also, OPEC is taking on measures that are constricting the supply of oil. However, rather than criticizing these measures, the Conservative government in Alberta rolled out the red carpet for Saudi Arabia and, indeed, said that we should follow the advice and projections that Aramco has for fossil fuel use in the future.
Obviously, the Conservatives say nothing about the record profits of the fossil fuel sector, which is soaking up that extra 63¢ a litre, and it is gobbling that up at the expense of everyday Canadians. We know that, since 2022, the oil and gas sector in Canada has made a $30-billion increase in profits, or a 1,000% increase since 2019.
We know that putting a price on carbon is the most efficient way of reducing emissions. It is why the right-of-centre government in British Columbia, the former B.C. Liberals, brought this measure in and, of course, the current Conservative MP for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge was part of that team. The economy of B.C. has been one of the strongest in the country ever since.
While B.C. has its own system, the federal system is set up in a way that offsets the costs such that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay. This is not just a measure of influencing behaviour and a climate measure. It is an affordability measure. This, of course, is one of the reasons Canada's current emissions reduction plan has allowed Canada to reduce emissions by more than any other G7 country since 2019. Obviously, we have a long to go after the Conservatives did absolutely nothing for a decade. They not only did nothing, but also caused embarrassment to Canada around the world by undermining climate policy globally.
Members know the saying, “If you tell a lie enough times, eventually even you will believe it.” The Conservatives live in a post-truth world, and they must think that, by repeating this, they can eventually convince Canadians of the same as well. Not only is the argument they make on carbon pricing factually incorrect, but the Conservatives will also say that we have not met a single climate target, which is disingenuous because our targets on reducing emissions have always been 2030 and 2050, and we are making significant progress in getting there.
The Conservatives say that we have not reduced emissions, but by the measures we brought in, we have done the equivalent of taking 11 million cars off the road annually. They do not actually want people to have lower heating bills. They want them to be strapped in to ride the roller coaster of volatile fossil fuel prices.
In contrast, we know that we need to decarbonize how we heat our homes and how we transport ourselves. Studies have shown that a Halifax resident can save over $1,400 a year by switching from oil heating to a heat pump. Just yesterday, I spoke to a fellow British Columbian who was able to get over $20,000 in grants from the federal government, from the B.C. government and from Vancity to be able to purchase and install a heat pump in B.C., so there is already a lot of support for these types of measures. Together with switching to an electric vehicle, we know that families can save as much as $10,000 a year.
Our government is intent on making sure this happens with a series of incentives and programs. It is working. We know that just last year in British Columbia over 18% of new vehicles sold were zero-emissions vehicles.
Unfortunately, the only climate plan we are hearing from the Conservatives is that we need to burn more fossil fuels. Yes, it is hard to believe that we need to increase our production of natural gas as a way of reducing emissions. They say to use technology, but what technology would that be? Is it any technology that is actually available today?
They are not going to talk about any of that technology. They are going to talk about technology that is unproven and that maybe a decade from now we will be able to use. The Conservatives talk about things such as small module reactors and carbon capture, which have not been proven and are not ready to use today. This is what we call greenwashing.
Instead, we see the Conservatives giving new meaning to cancel culture. We have seen the Government of Alberta very recently put a six-month moratorium on the renewable energy industry, which has been growing rapidly in the province and represents a $33-billion economic opportunity. We have seen, in this very House, the Conservatives filibuster and oppose the changes to the Atlantic accords that would create the foundation for a vibrant green-energy future, including with offshore winds in Atlantic Canada.
I will say that this is because the Conservatives do not actually believe that climate change is real. In fact, this is exactly how they voted at their policy convention just two years ago. I would also posit that they do not actually care about affordability because, if they did, they would be saying something about the record profits that are being made, and they would be standing right here with us on measures that would ensure that people can get off the use of fossil fuels for home heating and for transportation.
Rather, this motion and the dozen motions that we have debated in the House on the carbon tax are just a distraction from the real reason that the cost of energy is high in Canada. The Conservatives would rather keep Canadians strapped into the volatile roller coaster that global energy prices are right now. We know that they are going to be a challenge as we live in a very uncertain world.
We are focused on reducing emissions. That is why we are rolling out this heat pump program and why we have been implementing all these different measures as part of our emissions-reductions plan. It is also why I will be voting against this measure.
We need to make sure that we utilize the most efficient program that we have at our disposal for reducing emissions, which is, of course, having a price on pollution. This is a measure that Conservatives used to believe in. We know the government of Stephen Harper was on board with this idea, and the Conservative Party ran on this in the last election. In my home province of B.C., we had a right-of-centre government that brought this in, and none of the doom and gloom that some people said would happen ended up happening.
With that, I look forward to some questions and comments from my colleagues.
1436 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
