SoVote

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Nov/8/23 5:20:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, there has been plenty of legislation that Conservatives have agreed with and voted for. There were bills on disabilities, child care and extending COVID support payments. If it is good legislation, we will vote for it. In fact, the Liberals have legislation they still have not brought back to the House, such as Bill C-56, which Conservatives have indicated they would support. Canadians were told that Liberals could not cut or pause the carbon tax for any Canadians because of fires, floods and hurricanes, and I want to know how any member in the Liberal Party sleeps at night. How does the member sleep at night knowing that they paused the carbon tax on heating oil when just six months ago, they said they could not pause anything because of hurricanes, floods and fires?

137 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/8/23 5:21:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem sleeping at night. The greatest frustration I have is entering the House of Commons each day trying to figure out what game the Conservative Party is going to play in order to prevent legislation from passing. I am never disappointed because this is how they behave. It could be a motion for concurrence on a report. I have seen members of the Conservative Party move that someone else be heard and then cause the bells to ring so they do not have to debate legislation. I have seen Conservatives move to adjourn the House. I have seen the Conservatives deny the House sitting past six o'clock because they do not want to sit until midnight as they do not think Canadians want their MPs to do that. These are all behaviours we see from the Conservatives because they do not really want legislation to pass. Yes, if they can be shamed in certain situations, we are able to get some bills through, but it is, in good part, because of shaming them and time allocation.

184 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Nov/8/23 5:22:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, one would almost think the Conservatives are giving him hives. I can understand that, given the rhetoric we are hearing day after day. With the Conservatives, it is always something. My colleague must be a bit of a navel-gazer. Some aspects of his speech were quite interesting, but I would like to remind him that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development just told us that Canada is the only G7 country that has not reduced its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. Worse still, the government will continue to invest up to $83 billion until 2035. What does my colleague have to say about that? It seems to me that some of his remarks make no sense or are highly contradictory.

131 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/8/23 5:23:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I very much value the Minister of Environment and his general attitude in making sure that Canada is on the right track. We have seen over the last few years that we are going in the right direction. As a government, we continue to be committed to reaching net zero. That is why we brought in the net-zero legislation not that long ago, perhaps 18 months or two years ago, though I am not exactly sure when it was, which also incorporated reporting mechanisms so there would be updates and reports every five years.

97 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/8/23 5:24:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

Mr. Speaker, to refresh the hon. member's memory, Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, was brought forward in 2021 and I voted against it because it would do absolutely nothing toward climate accountability. I know we are not debating climate tonight, but it is coming up. The Government of Canada just found out from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that we are not moving in the right direction. We continue to ignore the budget that really matters, which is the carbon budget. Net zero by 2050 is irrelevant if we do not hit the near-term targets by 2030, because then we will be on a trajectory to an unlivable world for our own children. It is an unforgivable and unnecessary failure. I know the Conservatives are not helping, but I do think the Liberals owe the Conservatives a large thanks, because, if not for the Conservatives, the Liberals would not have any claim to having a better record than anybody else in the history of time.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/8/23 5:25:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, always believe that there is room for improvement; there is no doubt about that. However, as I said, I have every confidence in the Minister of Environment and his leadership on the file, and we are moving in the right direction. I believe that net zero is in fact achievable. I look forward to continuing to bring in and see policies through the government that will actually help lead us in that direction, whether through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the investments it is making in co-operation with other stakeholders to direct government involvement or with things such as heat pumps. I do recognize that the Green Party actually voted with the Liberals the other day in relation to the heat pumps and the incentives in supporting the price on pollution. I do appreciate that.

141 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Nov/8/23 5:26:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I think it is a tough job that he has to continue, and I think that endurance is admirable. However, what is not admirable is that this report outlines clearly that the commissioner found that the government actually lacked the ability to manage key risks, which prevents it from meeting its strategy by 2050. What does the member have to say about how the government can rectify something like this? If it has a plan that says the commitment is to be net zero by 2050 but does not understand the risks associated with getting there, how is it going to be able to get there?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/8/23 5:27:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, allow me to report the conclusion. It does not say “all recommendations”, but six or seven of them were responded to, and there is a conclusion: As the Government continues to strengthen its approach to greening government operations and to performance measurement and reporting under the GGS, we will take the Committee’s recommendations into account. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you and the Committee members for your important work in reviewing the report of the CESD on the Strategy. Suffice it to say that I do believe that, at times, we see fantastic work coming out of the standing committee. I know that the respective ministers take it seriously and I believe will ensure that we continue to go in the right direction.

133 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Nov/8/23 5:28:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9

Mr. Speaker, we have seen day after day, actually it has been a few weeks now, the Conservatives continue their filibuster through concurrence reports in the House when these studies have taken place in committee. Today we were supposed to be debating Bill S-9, an act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Canada has been a leader in this area and I think the clarity that this proposed act would be providing when it comes to the list of chemical weapons is greatly needed. I was wondering what the member thinks about that.

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/8/23 5:29:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up two really good points. First and foremost, the member recognized that the report we are talking about today has been extensively debated, talked about and analyzed thoroughly at the standing committee. So, members of Parliament would have had all sorts of opportunities to be able to contribute to that whole discussion that had taken place. The second issue the member raised is the impact of not having a debate on Bill S-9, which is very important. Not only is it important, but I believe that all political parties in this House actually support the bill. It is a non-controversial piece of legislation. Had the Conservatives not played this game, we would have probably even seen the bill pass today, from my understanding. It is a real shame that the Conservative Party is putting party politics over the best interests of good, sound public policy. Sadly, it is not the first time, because one of the greatest frustrations of the filibuster I have seen with the Conservative Party of Canada was on dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement, and maybe I will get some more time to expand on that point soon.

200 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Nov/8/23 5:30:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are here to talk about report that was done a long time ago. Little time was given to prepare to talk about it in the House today. Unfortunately, this report was mishandled on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Let me explain. We called witnesses and they were only able to give their opening remarks. After that, the committee was interrupted and we had to leave the room to vote. In the end, the witnesses got nowhere and left without hearing a single question or making a single comment. Luckily, we were able to ask some of the questions at the next meeting, but suffice it to say that the subject was not a popular one. So that surprises me. I am very happy to see the Conservatives so interested in the green transition and in going green that they are now bringing back a report that they themselves mishandled. First, let us talk about the purpose of this audit. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was trying to establish whether the government had taken the necessary steps to meet six targets laid out in the greening government strategy. This audit therefore focused on the Treasury Board, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport in terms of efforts made. The main findings are quite damning. The government simply has not put in the resources needed to achieve its targets. That is nothing new; we say it fairly often. It came as no surprise to committee members. Another important finding is that the departments of transport and national defence have no risk management strategy. That is pretty disturbing in the 21st century. Even companies are starting to adopt a number of risk management strategies, particularly for climate risks. When we talk about climate risks, we are talking about risks that are systemic and physical. Of course, there are potential floods and risks that can completely change operations, in other words, operational risks. There are also reputational risks. There are a multitude of risks associated with climate change. Most companies are already in the process of identifying them, because they know that climate change is happening now and it will have an impact on the economy. However, government departments, which are supposed to be at the forefront, have no risk management strategy. That is a pretty scathing observation. The next observation is that Treasury Board simply lacked the necessary data to determine whether it was going to meet its targets. Not only was it unlikely to meet them based on the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development's observations and audit, but Treasury Board had also failed to collect the necessary data. Obviously, the first step is to collect the data and then to organize, analyze and use them. This means there is no data and no analysis. Good luck advancing a strategy that way. Furthermore, Crown corporation GHG emissions were not accounted for. I know that this topic was raised by a colleague who I am pleased to sit with on the committee. Still, the fact that Crown corporations were left out of the government's GHG tally, when they account for a large part of government, is a big problem. Let me give a brief reminder about Crown corporations. We are talking about organizations that are responsible for implementing the government's public policies. They receive large sums of money and spend it as they see fit, without being accountable to the government or the public in the same way that government departments are required to be. The government's new strategy is simple: spend as much money as it can in the form of tax credits or funds allocated to Crown corporations that they themselves manage. It is very simple, and no one will know where taxpayers' money is going. No one will know whether Crown corporations are participating in the greening government strategy or whether they are really trying to come up with a strategy to make a green transition. There is no way to track what Crown corporations are doing. Let us just say that it is very useful for the government. At one of the first committee meetings, we heard from PSP Investments. It is important to point out that this is the federal Crown corporation that manages the pension fund. In the fall of 2021, it was described as lagging behind other pension funds in terms of its sustainable development strategy. It was very difficult for parliamentarians and even for my team to get access to the actual dollar amounts for workers' pension funds. It was very hard to determine how much money was sent to oil companies in western Canada, for example, because the fossil fuel energy category was folded into the broader energy category. I think that we can all agree that investing in wind energy and investing in oil are two very different things. How are we supposed to know whether the Crown corporations are doing the right thing? At this juncture, it is basically impossible because of their lack of transparency. That is another point that was rightly raised by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The last point might make some people smile and others cry, unfortunately. The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that were reported during the pandemic are purely a result of the pandemic. They had absolutely nothing to do with the government's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That was a great finding by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The Conservatives are bringing up a report that, for whatever reason, they did not seem so interested in when we were in committee, but they absolutely want to debate it in the House now, more than a year later. How odd. I notice that they are bringing it up at a time when we are hearing a lot of noise about the carbon tax. If I may, I will put on my teacher hat and give a little lesson on what is happening in Quebec in terms of fighting climate change and how it is using economic tools to fight climate change. Quebec has a cap-and-trade system. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec, the Government of Quebec applies a price per tonne of carbon emitted. I wonder if people are following what I am saying. I am looking at a certain bench in particular to see if they are following me. I have uttered only one sentence. Quebec's chosen strategy, which was initially implemented in 2013 and then expanded to include distributors of fossil fuel products in 2015, is a carbon market that applies to [Quebec's] major emitters. Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind that, in Quebec, road transportation has been the main source of rising greenhouse gas emissions since [then]. Instead of imposing a fixed price for each tonne of carbon emitted, the Quebec government imposes a total emissions cap and lets emitters divvy up shares of that cap among themselves. That is why it is called a cap-and-trade system, because instead of putting a price directly on each tonne of carbon emitted, there is a quota. It is regulated by quantity, and then the market itself determines what price companies should pay per tonne of carbon. Under this system, the government grants a certain number greenhouse gas emission allowances equal to the total amount of emissions it wants on its territory for a given period and auctions them off. The emitting businesses then have to compete to obtain allowances if their activities produce carbon. All things being equal, as the number of emission allowances goes down, based on the emissions reduction target set by the jurisdiction, their price goes up. Among the emitters, every business distributing more than 200 litres of fuel and fossil fuels a year, or emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO₂, has to have emission allowances. Refineries in Quebec are also subject to the cap-and-trade system, not only for their refining activities, but also for their activities as wholesalers and distributors. However, for their refining activities, they get free allowances distributed by the Government of Quebec that cover 95% of the emissions produced, a ratio that should gradually go down. I want to mention that in my role as a professor, I received a lot of help from the research chair on taxation and public finance, who is doing a great job working to educate the public on the effects of the cap-and-trade system. I hope this topic will be spoken of in the House in a more logical and realistic way from now on. To continue: The purchase of emission allowances increases the cost of distributing fuel and is reflected in the price at the pump (affecting the price before tax). Consequently, although [cap-and-trade] levies are not directly reflected in the price of gas paid by the end purchaser, they are nonetheless paid by the end purchaser. I think this is an important point. The consumer picks up part of the tab. That should be of interest to the people here. Consumers end up paying a small share. I will be getting to that soon. I know that everyone is waiting to find out how much the consumer pays for the cap-and-trade system in Quebec. Here is the answer: “Therefore...since 2015, the effect of the [cap-and-trade system] on the price of a litre of gas has increased from approximately 4¢ in 2015 to nearly 9¢ in 2023”. We therefore know the impact of the cap-and-trade system on prices at the pump in Quebec. However, experts with the Université de Sherbrooke research chair on taxation and public finance noted that: ...a portion of the tax revenue goes toward maintaining and developing the road network. In the context of fighting climate change, these fuel taxes can also be viewed as a disincentive to use this greenhouse gas-emitting product. After carefully examining the taxes levied on fuel, the authors [of the report that I am quoting] found that, in Quebec, these taxes have had a limited effect on the recent fluctuations in the price at the pump... However, fuel is subject to other taxes, such as the GST, the QST and the excise tax. All of those taxes were considered together with the cap-and-trade system. Once all of these levies were put together, the authors found that they “have had a limited effect on the recent fluctuations in the price at the pump and that their level in constant dollars has remained stable over the past 10 years, whereas their weight in the economy is dropping and they remain relatively low in comparison to the taxes being charged elsewhere in the world”. That is how Quebec used existing economic tools to fight climate change. The Conservatives are saying that it has been eight horrible years where everyone in Quebec has been complaining about the extra 9¢ a litre on gas. That is not the case. People have not been complaining that much. On the contrary, Quebec has accepted that it must take responsibility in the fight against climate change. There is a very important example that shows just how well these measures are working. By 2015, Quebec had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.8% compared to 1990 levels. It is working. Governments need to be able to introduce certain measures to combat climate change. This should serve as another reminder to the House that Quebec often stands alone in fighting climate change. In 2014, Quebec linked its cap-and-trade system with California's. It had to go south of the border to find someone willing to open this carbon market with it, because unfortunately, people here in Canada were too focused on other issues to realize that fighting climate change was an important issue and that this type of economic tool works. Quebec linked its cap-and-trade system up with California's. Members may recall that Ontario joined the system with great fanfare, only to pull out two or three years later. Quebec may have been ahead of the game back then, but this is not the first time I have said that in the House, nor will it be the last. To set the record straight again, the cost of climate change is higher than the cost of fighting it. I can give many examples of this. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work as an economist at Ouranos and prepare a report commissioned by the Government of Quebec to determine how much climate change in Quebec would cost over the next 50 years. This fascinating report was published in 2015. We studied the costs of climate change and identified six areas where those costs would be especially high. In terms of infrastructure, there was the issue of permafrost. Rising temperatures are causing the ground to thaw, allowing greenhouse gases to escape more quickly. This is happening all over northern Quebec and, obviously, in the rest of Canada as well. Erosion is another area we identified. Climate change and rising water levels are eroding shorelines. As we know, erosion is very expensive. Sometimes roads and houses have to be moved. Should a disaster hit, this can often even cause landslides. Then there is flooding, as I mentioned. We know that with climate change, flooding will be not only more frequent but also more severe. Both the frequency and intensity of these events will increase. We know that the cost of climate change is enormous. Another cost that we did not study at the time, but that should be studied, is the effects of climate change on forest fires. The cost of forest fires is also huge, and we in Quebec paid the price this summer. It was catastrophic. I am thinking in particular of all the forestry workers we are trying to support and the people of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Nord-du-Québec who have suffered enormously because of these forest fires caused by climate change. There are also health implications. Heat waves are going to have a huge impact on health. Many seniors' residences do not even have air conditioning yet. Human lives have been lost. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for this loss of life, because human life obviously has a value, and that value can be determined. Then there is pollen. People tend not to think of that when they think about the economic consequences of climate change, but climate change is increasing the prevalence of allergies and reactions to pollen. Some people are highly allergic to pollen, and I am lucky not to be one of them. When these people are unable to go to work, they are obviously less productive, and that has an economic cost. Finally, there are zoonotic diseases, diseases transmitted by animals. Rising temperatures are causing zoonotic diseases to spread in Quebec. There is West Nile virus, a virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes. As the climate changes and temperatures rise, mosquitoes are heading further and further north in Quebec and infecting more people. This has a cost. It is an extremely powerful virus, and the people who catch it become very unproductive. Then there is Lyme disease, which is gaining a lot of ground in Quebec. If an individual who contracts this disease does not act quickly, they may have to deal with very serious consequences for many years or for the rest of their life. This disease needs to be treated quickly, but in Quebec, people may not be used to checking for symptoms of Lyme disease. When someone is bitten by a tick, they need to find out whether the tick is infected with Lyme disease, but not everyone knows that. Those are some of the economic consequences of climate change. I want to do a quick cost-benefit analysis of measures to combat climate change. On the one hand, there is the additional cost of 9¢ per litre, and on the other hand, there are all the costs I just mentioned, which amount to billions of dollars. I will let people draw their own conclusions. I personally think that we know how to do things in Quebec, and that, in the end, we do them well. We can always ask ourselves whether or not we want to continue working with the government. Right now, we do because we want to develop a green strategy. That said, perhaps the government should take a closer look at what Quebec is doing, because we are doing pretty well, and we are proud of that.

2804 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Nov/8/23 5:49:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member's speech. She is passionate about the environment. I know that the government is also committed to the environment. In response to the report, of course, it is laying road maps ahead as to how government departments can all reach the targets and what we are looking for. The member mentioned some of the aspects where the government has not necessarily reached the goals that are needed, but there were many areas that the government has made many improvements in. I want to ask the member whether she feels there are areas, in construction and procurement that the government is doing, where we are doing a good job on reducing our GHG emissions.

119 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Nov/8/23 5:50:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I know there are areas in which the government has made progress. Still, if I may offer a sobering reminder, when we are barely over the starting line, it is easy to pat ourselves on the back and say we have made progress. However, there is still a long way to go, and the government needs to focus on what is left to be done.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Nov/8/23 5:51:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague aptly pointed out, the report in question is a little out of date, but it looks at the issue of greenhouse gases and the environment, as well as the associated costs. When we go through the documents, one interesting thing we find is that there is a supplementary report. The government's response was mentioned, but the Conservatives also make recommendations, including “That TBS provide Canadian taxpayers with clear and transparent cost projections for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.” Is this not precisely more grandstanding from the Conservatives, something we often see, for example when they talk about the carbon tax and other things only to ultimately steer us toward the conclusion that protecting the environment is costly? In this regard, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

137 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Nov/8/23 5:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question. Often, we see that the Conservatives are not doing anything to help themselves or their country to make progress in the fight against climate change. There is a lot of filibustering. We see it in every committee. We see it in the House. Unfortunately, that does not help anyone, even their constituents, in the fight against climate change.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Nov/8/23 5:52:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have spent some time with the member in our Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I quite enjoy our time there. I find ourselves often agreeing, in particular when it comes to environmental work. When I received the report from the environment commissioner, I was quite shocked that, with the current government in particular, which touts being one of the most environmentally friendly there has ever been, we see damning reports. How would the member rate the government on environmental issues, given the auditor's responses?

89 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Nov/8/23 5:53:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague with whom I do have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We definitely tend to agree on these issues. I will not be giving the government a grade today in the House. However, I can say that, if I did, it would not be a passing grade, since the government is not even capable of achieving its own objectives. It cannot pass a test. I will not give it a grade, but, what I do know is that it would be well below 60%, which is the passing mark.

101 words

All Topics

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

Nov/8/23 5:53:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her very clear and enlightening speech on the repercussions of climate change and the social cost of not taking care of the environment. Our Conservative friends could not care less about that, but there is a social cost. My colleague talked about what that costs a society. This social cost has even been highlighted by the International Monetary Fund, or IMF. The IMF—which is not Équiterre, Greenpeace or some far-left environmental organization—published an analysis that Le Devoir reported on under the headline, “Canada's fossil fuel subsidies reached $38 billion U.S. last year [in 2022]”. The article states the following: The vast majority of the subsidies cited by IMF researchers, or $36 billion U.S., comes primarily from public funds linked to our dependence on fossil fuels. These include the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and the associated climate crisis, the consequences of air pollution (including premature deaths), and the costs of traffic congestion and road accidents. We are talking about $50 billion in 2022 handed over to an industry that made $200 billion in profits that same year. The math is simply unbelievable. That amounts to $50 billion in repercussions for Canada. I think my colleague gave a really brilliant outline of the $50 billion. I thank her very much.

231 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Nov/8/23 5:55:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning that figure, because it is really very important. It shows that, when it comes to the government, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. On one hand we have a minister who is quite pleased to talk about strategy and say that it is fantastic, that the government is good and that the friends at Équiterre are happy with the government. On the other hand, $50 billion is being sent to an extremely polluting industry that pockets exorbitant profits. It is really problematic that there is so much hypocrisy in the government, a government that does not know how to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is disastrous. As I said in my speech, if we do nothing, the cost of inaction on climate change is very high.

146 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/8/23 5:56:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate the fact that today we are having this particular concurrence motion being discussed and the Conservative Party now and on many occasions has brought in concurrence reports, which has really prevented government legislation from being passed. Today, for example, we were supposed to be dealing with Bill S-9. I believe the Bloc is actually supporting it, as are all political parties in the House. I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts. Much as they would not want opposition days constantly interrupted by concurrence reports, it does have a negative impact on legislation being ultimately passed. Would the member not agree?

113 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 249