SoVote

Nov/7/23 12:35:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Seth Klein said this, “The fed NDP have a motion coming forward Tuesday trying to shift the debate caused by the Lib's boneheaded carbon tax carve-out. This motion lays out a far better approach. This alternate motion calls on government to eliminate the GST for all forms of home heating, including electric, offer free heat pumps and energy retrofits for low and middle-income households and pay for it with revenues from a windfall profit tax on oil and gas companies.” I will be listening to Seth, and I thank him.

97 words

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Nov/7/23 12:36:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that yesterday the NDP voted with Conservatives on our common-sense motion to remove the carbon tax from all forms of home heating for all Canadians, instead of just singling out the 3% of Canadians who use heating oil for their homes. The New Democrats are neglecting the 97% of Canadians who use other forms, such as natural gas or propane, for their home heating. Winter is here. It is going to be -20°C. Why then did the member today decline our leader's common-sense amendment to the NDP motion today to exclude the carbon tax on all forms of home heating for all Canadians? They could do that today by accepting the Conservative amendment.

125 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Nov/7/23 12:36:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that I was very clear in my speech that we offered amendments more than once for the Conservative motions around their carbon-taxing concerns. We have pointed out that B.C., Quebec and the Northwest Territories are not included. Why are the Conservatives leaving those provinces and territories out of something so that those folks do not get the support they need during this time of huge inequality in income?

77 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Nov/7/23 12:37:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw my colleague's attention to something important. At the beginning of her speech, she focused on the climate crisis and the fact that we must take action in light of that crisis. In the measures that the NDP is proposing, however, no distinction is made between different sources of energy. Does my colleague not believe that her party could have proposed something better crafted and more structured to encourage people to move away from fossil fuels and switch to cleaner energy?

87 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Nov/7/23 12:38:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important part of what we need to be talking about, moving forward to energy that is more economic and more environmentally friendly. However, what this motion is really addressing, though, is the fact that we need fairness for all people across the country, for people who are dealing with an economic crisis that is stressing them out and making it harder for them to decide on whether to pay for food, or heat or medication. The motion specifically focuses on this. We have offered other ideas and motions that deal with those broader conversation, but we did not want to put all of that into a big motion, because it gets harder for people. This is what we are focusing on today. I look forward to continuing to work with every member in this place to move toward a greener economy that has environmental friendliness at the heart of it.

156 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Nov/7/23 12:39:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of our party’s opposition motion. This is what real climate action looks like: climate action that does not divide people, but brings people together; climate action that gives families and individuals struggling to make ends meet a break, while also reducing our carbon emissions; climate action that asks the big polluters, who have seen record profits, to pay for it. We are in the midst of two different crises that must be addressed: a climate crisis and an affordability crisis linked to growing inequality. Last spring and summer, we were confronted directly by the impact of the climate crisis. Record-setting wildfires covered large parts of the country, causing provinces to declare states of emergency and many residents to flee. Smoke blanketed cities across the country, including Winnipeg, where poor air quality kept people indoors and posed a danger to people with pre-existing health issues, including asthma. What we saw over those months was a window into our future if we did not treat this climate crisis with the urgency it deserved. We cannot allow extreme weather events, which put the lives and health of people at risk, to become the new normal. It is not normal; it is a consequence of our failure to act. Meanwhile, a growing affordability crisis is forcing a growing number of people in our communities to choose between groceries and rent, to choose between heating and eating. Grocery prices have soared, far outpacing the general rate of inflation and wage growth. In Winnipeg Centre, which has the third-highest child poverty rate in the country, food bank use is climbing. In fact, according to a report by Food Banks Canada, food banks in Manitoba have seen a 30% rise in demand. In March of this year alone, there were 57,000 food bank visits, more than 20,000 of whom were children. Life is getting harder and harder for people who were already struggling to get by. Who is not struggling? Canada’s big oil and gas companies. The top five Canadian oil and gas companies reported $38.3 billion in profits for 2022. That is an increase of more than double compared to their profits of $16.9 billion in 2021. That is shameful. Suncor alone made over $9 billion in profit during 2022, an astonishing and shameful amount. Where is this money going? It is not going toward fighting climate change or making life more affordable for people. It is going to reward its shareholders and CEOs. Speaking of CEOs, I want to talk about Imperial Oil. Brad Corson, the CEO of Imperial Oil, is the highest-paid executive in the Canadian energy industry. His pay almost doubled in 2022, up to $17.3 million. Imperial Oil is currently under formal federal investigation for a months-long tailings leak at its Kearl oil sands mine in Northern Alberta. Documents filed by the company showed it knew that tailings were seeping into groundwater for years before contaminated fluid was reported on the surface. When my constituents miss a shift at work, they get their pay docked and they risk getting fired. When the CEO of Imperial Oil presides over an environmental catastrophe, he gets his pay doubled. It is an insult to hard-working people all over the country whose wages have not budged for years. That is just one reason why we need a windfall tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas companies. Why a windfall tax? It is about ensuring that the big polluters, which are worsening the climate crisis, are paying for the action needed to address it. Right now, we know that is not happening. Major loopholes in the carbon pricing framework mean that oil and gas companies only pay a small fraction of the cost of their pollution, while 80% to 90% of their emissions are exempt. To take one example, Suncor, which I mentioned previously, only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price. It would also generate significant revenue that we can invest in lowering people's energy bills, with home retrofits that reduce emissions and make life more affordable. How significant? The parliamentary budget office estimated that a windfall tax would generate $4 billion over five years. This could fund a program to make heat pumps and other retrofits free of cost to families that would otherwise not be able to afford them. A windfall tax, as we know, is not a radical idea. The European Union, the U.K. and India are among those that have implemented one. Why? It is common sense. At a time when energy companies are making record profits and people are struggling to pay their heating bills, we need to turn a portion of those excess profits into relief for consumers. We can also use revenue from a windfall tax for a massive expansion of energy efficient home renovations for low- and middle-class Canadians. Home retrofits and heating pumps are a win-win-win. They reduce emissions, lower people's utility bills and create green jobs. In Winnipeg Centre, many people would like to make these changes to their homes, but they simply cannot afford the upfront cost. This program should not be restricted to folks who only use a certain type of fuel to heat their homes. Whether they use home heating oil, natural gas, electric baseboard heating or anything else, they should have access to a program that lets them reduce their carbon footprint and reduces their monthly power bill. It is about how we get to net-zero emissions and how we bring millions of people along in the fight against the climate emergency. Life is hard enough already for families and individuals in my riding who are working three jobs and skipping meals so their kids can eat. These are not the people who should be paying more to address the climate crisis. It is the big oil and gas companies and their CEOs who are fuelling this crisis, and we should be sticking them with the bill. We are running out of time to get this right. Dividing people up by region and putting all the burden on individuals, as the Liberals are doing, will not get us there. Neither will burying our heads in the sand and refusing to even offer a climate plan, which is the Conservative approach. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, the corporate champion from Carleton, is silent when it comes to the obscene profits being made by his oil and gas buddies. It is no wonder, because when he was sitting at the cabinet table, his government handed out $55 billion in tax cuts to wealthy corporations, including oil and gas companies. It is time for a new approach, one that finally asks the big polluters to pay their fair share of the costs, one that gives families and individuals who are struggling real relief from the rising costs driving them deeper into poverty and despair and one that makes energy efficient upgrades available to millions of households that want to do their part for our planet but cannot because the costs are too high. Today’s motion is exactly the kind of new approach that is desperately needed. I urge the government and all parties of the House to support it and put us on a pathway to real climate action that lifts people up and gives them the help they need.

1254 words

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 12:48:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear my hon. colleague use language that is typically attributable to the Conservatives' policy on climate change. I am wondering if she can comment on the following. At no time in the last few years has the price of groceries in Canada exceeded the cost of groceries in the United States. Canada remains among the countries with the lowest price of groceries in the G7. This is versus other countries, our allies, that do not have prices on pollution. Can she comment on the correlation between an increase in grocery prices and a price on pollution? In jurisdictions where there is no price on pollution, grocery prices are still higher.

116 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Nov/7/23 12:49:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to ask the residents of Winnipeg Centre, who are having the hardest time ever feeding their families, about his brag that our food prices are really low. My riding has the third-highest number of children in the country going without food. Where is the Liberal government? It is trying to buy off and divide Canadians with bogus plans for political points. The Liberal government, instead of supporting the NDP motion to control grocery prices, is having meetings with CEOs to demonstrate they are going to do the right thing so that people in my riding of Winnipeg Centre can eat. I am done with the political bantering, sound bites and bragging about how the Liberals have tackled affordability. I would like the member to sit down with the families and people of Winnipeg Centre who are currently starving and on the verge of being unhoused to see what they think about how well the government is doing on the affordability crisis.

169 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Nov/7/23 12:51:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that no one should go hungry. There are eight billion people in this world, four billion of whom are fed by synthetic fertilizers enhancing food production. That has been acknowledged in three committees I have attended this past week. Would the member acknowledge that natural gas from our fossil fuel companies is integral to feeding half of the world's production, as acknowledged by the World Food Programme, Canadian Foodgrains Bank and others?

81 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Nov/7/23 12:51:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that the fossil fuel industry is contributing to catastrophic climate change. We know that climate change and the climate emergency are impacting food production, particularly in countries where the Canadian Foodgrains Bank works. Let us talk about common sense. I am concerned about the Conservatives' “common-sense” plan. They are not willing to axe the profits of their corporate buddies, but they are willing to fuel their profits. I am wondering if the corporate champion from Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, will put forward what he thinks is common sense and give another $55 billion to big corporations in the oil and gas industry.

112 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Nov/7/23 12:52:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is really important is the cost of living in general. We are scoping on this component too. I like the member's comments with regard to affordable services that are essential, such as cellphone prices and the costs there, and how Canada has deviated away from market control on these things. The United States has better control. The European Union has better control. When we look at that, what are some of the other things we could look at to create affordability for Canadians? The industries that I mentioned are also making record profits using a public service, which is the spectrum for the airwaves we have. The Liberals and the Conservatives brought in $20 billion from spectrum while at the same time passing on the extra costs to consumers.

135 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Nov/7/23 12:53:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that access to communications is a fundamental right that the Liberal government continues to turn a blind eye to. There are so many people across Canada who do not have access to a cellphone and do not have access to the Internet. That is something the government should be addressing. It is a human rights matter that the government is failing on, and it needs to act on that now.

77 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 12:54:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and pleasure to rise in this House. Before I begin my formal remarks, I want to discuss affordability. It is important to get on the record this morning for my constituents and all Canadians what our government has done to make life more affordable for all Canadians over the last several years we have been in power. We ran on a promise to cut the middle-income tax bracket from 22% to 20.5%. Every year, that is a roughly $3.5-billion tax cut for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Over eight years, that is over $26 billion in the pockets of Canadians, about $330 per year per individual and over $600 per couple. Then we brought in something else, which I want to claim a little credit for. It was to raise the basic personal amount to $15,000 by 2023. That means Canadians will not have to pay federal income tax on the first $15,000 of their income. In fiscal year 2024-25, that will be a $6-billion tax cut for Canadians. It is putting hundreds of dollars back into Canadians' pockets. We should be proud of the $300 or $400 going back into the pockets of individual filers and, more so, families. Combined, we are looking at nearly $10 billion in tax cuts for hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Then there is the Canada child benefit, which has lifted 653,000 children out of poverty. Along with a strong labour market, growth and wages, it is a $26-billion-plus program that we put in place to help Canadian families and children and to lift children out of poverty. For small businesses, we cut the tax rate from 11% to 9%, again putting more money into the pockets of business owners across this country. There are so many other measures I could mention, but I want to speak directly to the opposition motion at hand, the energy sector it references and other aspects of it. The energy sector is about 10% of the Canadian economy. I salute the workers, who contribute real export dollars. Trade statistics came out this morning saying the energy sector again led the way and accounts for over 25% of Canadian exports. It will account for them today and tomorrow. Even with the green transition we are seeing in full force, the Canadian energy sector leads the way for Canadian workers and families. I am pleased to take part in today's debate. The motion brings up important issues. There is no doubt that the effects of climate change are real and are becoming more and more devastating, harmful and expensive. That is why the government has put in place a price on pollution, and stands by it. Economists agree that a price on pollution is one of the least expensive and most efficient ways to reduce emissions. It is much less costly than the cost of doing nothing. As everyone knows, the majority of proceeds from the price on carbon pollution go straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 Canadians in those provinces getting more money back through the climate action incentive payments than they pay as a result of the price on carbon. In Ontario, for example, a family of four gets nearly $1,000 back in quarterly installment payments. It is returned to hard-working Ontarians. Eight of out 10, or even more than that, I would estimate, are better off under this system. It is very efficient and the least expensive way to reduce emissions. Our world-leading carbon pollution pricing system is essential in our fight against climate change. It not only puts money back in the pockets of Canadians, but it is also highly effective because it provides a clear economic signal to businesses and allows them the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way of lowering their emissions. At the same time, it also increases demand for the development and adoption of clean technologies. Furthermore, investments in strengthening Canada's competitiveness in the clean economy will not only promote the shift towards net zero. They will also deliver good middle-class jobs for Canadian workers in communities right across Canada. Today, a climate plan is just as important as an economic plan and a jobs plan. Climate policy is economic policy. However, the reality is that many Canadians across the country are currently struggling to pay their bills and are under a lot of financial stress. It is important for us to help them. I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague and good friend, the hon. member for Whitby. On October 26, the Prime Minister announced that we will be doubling the pollution price rebate rural top-up rate from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. Our government recognizes that people who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city and have limited access to clean transportation alternatives. People in rural communities will receive their first increased payment in April 2024. This increase will be applied every year going forward. I note that the motion at hand mentions heat pumps. To provide more time and financial support for the roughly 1.1 million homes in Canada, including tens of thousands of homes in Ontario, using home heating oil to switch to heat pumps, as part of that October 26 package, the government also announced that it would temporarily pause the application of a fuel charge on deliveries of home heating oil, in all jurisdictions where it currently applies, for a three-year period. Canada's cool climate means that heating accounts for over 60% of the energy used in the average Canadian home. Making the switch to more energy efficient heating equipment, such as a cold climate air source heat pump, can save energy, reduce utility bills and, yes, reduce the carbon footprint. Heat pumps are one of the best ways for homeowners to get off of home heating oil when compared to other electric home heating sources, and they are also two to three time more efficient. In another part of the affordability measures put forward two weeks ago, the Prime Minister also announced a stringent oil to heat pump affordability program, which was introduced in 2022. The program helps low- to medium-income homeowners who are currently heating their homes with oil to transition to electric heat by installing a cold climate air source heat pump system. To strengthen the program, the federal government is partnering with provinces and territories and collaborating to increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000 and adding up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial and territorial contributions via co-delivery arrangements. The stringent program also includes upfront payments of $250 for at or below medium-income homeowners who use heating oil and sign up to switch to a heat pump through our joint federal-provincial government program. This would make the average heat pump installation free for low- to medium-income homeowners as we continue to minimize upfront costs and make federal programs even easier to access for all households using home heating oil. Cleaner, more affordable heating options will save people money on their energy bills for years to come. The reality is that, on average, homeowners who switch from oil to a cold-climate heat pump to heat and cool their homes save up to $2,500 a year on their energy bills. Climate change is real, and so is its catastrophic impact on Canada. It is important to take concrete action to combat it. That is exactly what we are doing. All the experts agree that a pollution pricing system is the best way to fight climate change. That is why we are continuing to move in that direction. Finally, we have been very clear. We are going to continue implementing our pollution pricing system while making sure we keep putting more money back into the pockets of Canadian households.

1403 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Nov/7/23 1:04:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. We know the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural Canadians. I was shocked this week to see that my riding of York—Simcoe is now classified as Toronto. The Liberals came up with this meagre top-up for people, which is about as handy as a front pocket on a pair of underwear, but now the people of York—Simcoe will not be getting it. All my farmers, small businesses and rural families will not get the top-up because we are now classified just like Toronto, which has subways, transit and Uber. We do not have any of that stuff in York—Simcoe, so I would ask if my colleague thinks that is fair.

125 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/7/23 1:05:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York—Simcoe is a dear friend, and I have spoken with him about this issue. He raised it with me. I think the issue as to how the riding of York—Simcoe is viewed within the carbon pricing system and the proceeds that are returned to its residents needs to be raised. The Holland Marsh area is a beautiful part of Ontario. There are many farmers and rural residents there who we need to ensure are not being considered as part of the city of Toronto, or the GTA, as we would call it. That would be the right thing and the fair thing to do.

114 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Nov/7/23 1:06:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the GST was brought in by Brian Mulroney, and the HST was later brought in by Stephen Harper. These are regressive taxes because they punish consumers. They also increase costs, which is an inflationary element. We have had many elections, and we have fought in the House, in this chamber, to eliminate the GST, but no one has ever acted on it. At any rate, we have reduced these taxes on certain essentials for Canadians. Why not just reduce it on this essential, which is home heating in this case, as there is a history of members reducing the GST on many different essentials?

106 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/7/23 1:06:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our system of taxation in Canada is obviously a progressive system. We brought in a number of measures to cut and reduce income taxes for middle-income Canadians. We have asked the wealthiest to pay a bit more, which is the right thing to do, and we will continue to march in that manner. It is important that taxes are collected to pay for all the social programs that Canadians depend upon, from old age security to the guaranteed income supplement, to the tax-free monthly Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit, to the Canada dental benefit, which hundreds of kids in my riding depend upon and over 500,000 children in Canada have used. Therefore, it is very important that we have a strong social fabric put in place. Canadians understand that. The residents in my riding understand that. We need to continue down that path.

151 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Nov/7/23 1:07:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go over something with my hon. colleague. There is a post by What's Interesting Vaughan that states, “Interesting and Frustrating Real Change! It completely wrecked our economy, tarnished our international standing, and unleashed a housing crisis of unprecedented proportions in Canada.” The carbon tax has killed this country, however, the Liberals voted against our motion. My colleague liked the post. Can he explain that to me?

75 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/7/23 1:08:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if that post was liked, it was done in error. What's Interesting Vaughan is a Conservative-run Instagram account. My hon. member for King—Vaughan knows that. She used the language that the carbon tax “killed” Canada. I would ask the hon. member to retract the word “killed”. In the context of what the world is dealing with now, I would say it is an incorrect term to use. With respect to the Canadian economy, we have a very low unemployment rate. We have had very strong economic growth over the last several years. Our fiscal foundation is very healthy. We maintain an AAA credit rating. Our borrowing rates are almost the lowest in the world. Our growth rates are strong. We continue to generate a lot of jobs. There are inflationary pressures on all Canadians, which is a global issue. We are dealing with it, and we will continue to deal with it in a responsible manner by putting in place some measures to deal with affordability, including the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit, the middle income class tax cut and the Canada dental benefit, which the member opposite knows will also apply to seniors next year. I cannot wait to go around the city of Vaughan to tell all the seniors about the Canada dental benefit and how it will help every single one of them.

239 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 1:09:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can see that this topic has been on the minds of everyone here over the last few days. The Government of Canada understands that the effects of climate change have been devastating for many families and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In fact, the Canadian Climate Institute estimates the annual costs will amount to $25 billion by 2025, and by mid-century, the estimate costs of climate change on our economy in Canada are half of the projected GDP growth of our entire country. That is an astounding and devastating amount of damage, which climate change is already causing. In 2023, we saw a record wildfire season, with some areas burning double those of historic records. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians had to evacuate their homes. It is safe to say we all watched in horror as we saw those fires rage across the country. That is not the only climate disaster or extreme weather event this country has gone through in the past several years. We have seen record floods and heat domes and many other natural disasters. Meanwhile, Canadians are facing an equally pressing affordability challenge as energy prices have skyrocketed. With winter coming very soon, households are facing higher heating bills. The government is taking real action to keep life affordable and to fight climate change at the same time, and now we must go further faster. This is why the Government of Canada recently announced major new funding to help households switch away from polluting home heating oil to efficient and clean heat pumps. We know home heating oil is three times to four times more expensive than other forms of heating. It being the most carbon intensive, and also the most costly, is exactly why recent measures have targeted home heating oil right across the country. Low- and middle-income households are struggling to make the switch to environmentally friendly heat pumps mainly because of the upfront cost, so we get that. We get that the upfront cost is truly the barrier to making the transition. Canadians want to do their part, and we want to encourage people to make the switch as soon as possible. Helping out with that upfront cost would really help them make that switch. That is what we have heard, and that is what we are doing. We also recognize that acquiring and installing a heat pump can take a number of weeks, if not months, and people will still be facing high oil heating costs in the meantime. Two weeks ago, the Government of Canada announced an expansion of the funding for heat pumps, making the average heat pump free for low- and medium-income Canadians. The strengthened oil to heat pump affordability program will partner with interested provinces and territories to increase the amount of federal funding eligible for homeowners so they can receive not just $10,000 but up to $15,000 for installing a heat pump in their house, adding to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial contributions in jurisdictions where programs are co-delivered. Low- to medium-income households who heat their homes with oil and sign up to participate in the OHPA program to switch to a heat pump will also receive an upfront payment of $250. On average, homeowners who switch from oil to cold climate heat pumps to heat and cool their homes save between $1,500 to $4,700 per year on their home energy bills. That is a whopping $125 to $400 per month of savings. That is a sizeable affordability measure that will help Canadians who are struggling to heat their homes and are using oil to do so. They are obviously subject to some of the highest costs to do that. The idea is to provide households with funding to help make the transition from heating oil to more efficient, environmentally friendly electric heat pumps that much easier. This new heat pump funding is in addition to what we already were doing to support Canadians in these uncertain times. I also want to talk about a few of the climate measures our government has put in place that are funding all kinds of other important initiatives. I do not mean to give the impression that this one program is all we are doing, or the newest measure we have announced is the only thing we are doing. There are many other aspects of the federal government's plan to fight climate change, build a stronger economy and reduce emissions. Under the low-carbon economy fund, for example, a new intake for one of our funding streams has just opened. It is called the low-carbon economy challenge. The Government of Canada remains committed to supporting projects that reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, generate clean growth, build resilient communities and create good jobs for Canadians. So far, the low-carbon economy challenge is providing more than $250 million to support 94 projects that invest in proven low-carbon technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I want to take this opportunity to highlight some projects we recently funded through the low-carbon economy fund. We have supported a range of projects, including replacing oil-fired boilers with electric models at a YMCA in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador; waste emissions reduction projects in Alberta; SaskPower's northern first nations home retrofit program in Saskatchewan; and home heat pump retrofits in Atlantic Canada, starting this year. Projects like these support the local economy, drive clean innovation and help Canada achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The fund also supports climate action by indigenous peoples. We recently funded some indigenous-owned and indigenous-led renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-carbon heating projects. There is the Peavine community solar farm project, which will offset a portion of Peavine Métis Settlement's electricity needs, thanks to a solar photovoltaic system. There is the Tl'etinqox community bio-heat project, which will displace 100% of the propane used in six community buildings, a church building and a healing centre in that community. We have also funded projects through the climate action and awareness fund. The fund is investing over $206 million over five years to support Canadian-made projects that help to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. This fund focuses on supporting youth climate awareness and climate research as well as advancing climate change science and technology. I think about projects like Science North's touring and stationary innovative climate change experience for young Canadians. Under this fund, the Government of Canada is also funding projects that are focused on strengthening Canada's science capacity to identify, accelerate and evaluate climate mitigation solutions and strategies. The idea is to create jobs for Canadians who work in science and technology, academia and at the grassroots community level. These jobs are critical as we continue to build knowledge, skills and a sustainable net-zero emissions economy by 2050. I also want to highlight the climate action fund, which was in existence from 2018 to 2020. It provided up to $3 million annually to support projects delivered by students, youth, indigenous peoples, non-profit organizations, small and medium-sized enterprises, and research and educational institutions. They are projects like the Green Building Council's work on redesigning our architectural landscape, Random Acts of Green's mobile app, and Agriculture in the Classroom Saskatchewan. These projects show us that Canadians are ready to take action against climate change in their everyday lives. These are only a few examples of funding initiatives that the Government of Canada has put in place to support Canadians as well as organizations and businesses in the fight against climate change. By taking the lead on climate action, Canada can become a leader in many of the new technologies the world will need to support action on climate change while unlocking economic growth and trade opportunities. We have seen many other projects. Some of the most prominent ones are the major investments made in incentivizing private investment in our electric vehicle battery supply chain as well as automobile manufacturing. Those are big, exciting announcements, but there is a lot more going on at different scales within our economy. Canadians have asked us to take action on climate change, really because they know that our economic growth and prosperity depend upon it. It is the biggest opportunity for our economic growth, and it helps us address the affordability challenge because climate change, in fact, is the biggest contributor to inflation that we have today globally. We have listened on all fronts, and we are delivering on all fronts.

1447 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248