SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 3:01:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague and friend. The oil and gas sector is a major contributor to Canada's economy, yet it is also the country's biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. That is why setting an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector is a key commitment in our emissions reduction plan. Our government intends to publish a framework on the design of the emissions cap by the end of the year.

85 words

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 3:03:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would start by reminding the members opposite that the Senate is independent and that the only senators who sit in a caucus sit in that Conservative caucus. I would add that farmers understand the importance of fighting climate change and reducing emissions. I thank that farmer for running her last election campaign on pricing carbon. That is why our pollution pricing policy reflects the realities of Canada's agriculture industry. We have spent almost $500 million on R and D and adoption for clean technologies for grain drying. We have spent $12 million to reduce methane emissions from cattle. We have spent $670 million to support the adoption of greenhouse gas reduction practices on farms. We will keep supporting farmers because they are key to fighting climate change.

131 words

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Nov/30/23 6:28:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. I think it is really important to have this debate at this particular juncture, given that Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets and the heft and might of its climate strategy will come under scrutiny at the COP climate conference in the next week or so. The report is kind of an indictment on the government's ability to undertake concrete action to implement policies, procedures and strategies that would materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions production within the government's own scope of operations. The recommendations contained herein, given the amount of public money that I am sure has been expended on the activities contained here, which were audited, should give every member of the House pause for thought and certainly some level of concern in terms of the government's ability to deliver results when it comes to climate change. I want to use this opportunity to talk about two things. The first is the government's inability to meet Canada's climate targets, and what I think it should be doing at the junction and intersection with the activities of the government that are contained within this report. Also, I want to talk about how the government needs to look at its operations and structures on different initiatives that are purportedly designed to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets but that are not getting the job done. A couple of weeks ago, ahead of a fairly significant vote in the House on removing the carbon tax on home heating for all Canadians, I wrote a piece entitled “Canada's carbon tax isn't working. It's time for it to go”. The subheading I used was “Monday’s vote on ‘axing the tax’ on home heating should be viewed as a critical opportunity to innovate.” The reason I put that subheading in there is that there were new reports that were showing that the government, in spite of having the carbon tax in place, was really not on its way to meeting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. At the same time, the economy, according to data we saw today, is shrinking. Canadians are having a really hard time making ends meet, and we are not meeting our targets. This should prompt the government into rethinking its approach. The piece reads as follows: Ahead of a Wednesday morning caucus meeting, and as winter temperatures begin to set in across the country, [the] federal Conservative Party leader...announced that his party would force a vote in the House of Commons...to extend a three-year carbon tax exemption that was announced by [the] Prime Minister...for Atlantic Canadian heating oil to all forms of home heating in every part of Canada. The temptation for the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners will be to continue to toe the line [the Prime Minister] took...which was that no additional carve-outs on the carbon tax would be forthcoming, and vote against [this Conservative] motion. This is what the Liberals and the NDP did. Actually, I am not sure, but the Liberals definitely voted against it. The article continues: But that position is a mistake, both politically and morally. If the Liberals and NDP care about public support for climate policy, the inflation crisis, and their jobs, they should vote in favour of [this] motion. Here's why. While inflation and cost of living remain the top concerns of Canadians, a very recent survey by Leger suggested that about 70% of Canadians are worried about climate change. However, support for keeping [the Prime Minister]'s signature climate policy, the carbon tax, only registers with the support of 18% of Canadians. The reason for the vast delta between public concern for addressing climate change and support for the carbon tax is something that few Liberal intelligentsia have considered. That blind spot is now both politically biting them in the rear and is likely preventing Canada from meeting its emissions reduction targets. And that reason is that the carbon tax is failing to move consumer preferences away from high-carbon products and practices in the way [the Prime Minister] promised that it would, and Canadians know it. And in the middle of a generationally high cost of living crisis, all Canadians—even those very concerned about climate change—are unwilling to pay for a policy they consider ineffectual. Said differently, people will only choose alternatives to driving and heating their homes with carbon-based fuel if other options exist, are available, and are affordable. Those circumstances might be partially available in other, more temperate, highly populated regions of the globe, but not so across much of Canada. So even though [the Prime Minister] is increasing the price of carbon fuel with his tax, Canadians aren't choosing to purchase alternatives because in most parts of Canada, they don't yet widely exist, or are completely unaffordable. Even within the government's own scope of operations, that principle is clearly shown within this report. It continues: This concept is simple to grasp for even the most politically disconnected Canadians, particularly when they fill up their car and pay a carbon tax but have no public transit alternatives or pay a carbon-based home heating bill for six months of brutal cold with no other option. And a decade of Liberal rule has also shown that their government isn't particularly good at getting these alternatives built— This is very much evidenced in this report. —which has further added to the failure of the carbon tax to shift demand for carbon fuel. Few Canadians now believe the Liberals can do things like actually build out the infrastructure needed to pull gas-powered cars off the road, for the simple fact that they’ve failed to do so after nearly a decade in government. That is again evidenced in this report. This was two weeks ago, but it goes on: And this week’s serious whistleblower allegations regarding wrongdoing at a federal government agency— This of course was SDTC. —that was supposed to spur the development and deployment of emissions reduction technologies will undoubtedly further erode public trust in the Liberal government's capacity to provide lower cost alternatives to carbon fuels. These facts are laid bare in recent government reports that show that even with the tax, Canada will still probably miss its 2030 emissions targets by close to 50 percent. We are not even in the universe of getting close to meeting those emissions targets. It continues: There's proof of these facts in recent political trends, too. [The Prime Minister's] capitulation on the tax on heating oil should have been viewed as an inevitability by even the most lay observer—the signs have been present for months. For example, in August, a Nova Scotia provincial riding that has been a safe Liberal hold for time immemorial was flipped by provincial conservatives due mainly to the unpopularity of the federal Liberal carbon tax. Within [the Prime Minister's] federal caucus, there has also been [a lot of] dissent over the issue, likely due to the sustained, precipitous dip in polls in the traditionally safe-for-the-Liberals electoral territory that is Atlantic Canada. These incidents followed nearly a year of high-profile messaging by my party, the Conservative Party, on these points, with “a message that was easy to grasp for millions of Canadians already grappling with increased living costs in the inflationary crisis.” It continues, “Now, that same crisis has overlaid onto the tax and means millions of Canadians face the prospect of choosing between heating and eating, never mind considering investing in expensive or”, as is the case is in most parts of Canada, “non-existent alternatives to carbon fuels.” Again, I draw members' attention to the finance minister's very tone-deaf comments in Atlantic Canada earlier this year when she talked about how easy it was for her to get around in her downtown riding after being asked about the impacts of the carbon tax on Prince Edward Island's car-based tourism economy. The report continues: Further, [the Prime Minister's] late-stage, partial capitulation on removing the tax only for heating oil but not for other carbon fuel also risks creating perverse incentives like the one mentioned by the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, Bruce McLauchlin, who suggested that [the Prime Minister's] partial tax exemption may generate demand for higher emitting heating oil in certain circumstances. Keeping the tax with regional inequities also will further divide the country at a time when the federal government should be working towards unifying policy. This report really shows that the government makes a lot of promises when it comes to climate and has not delivered. Canadians are poorer and our greenhouse gas emissions have risen. I really hope the government takes the recommendations in this report writ large, looks at them, goes back to the drawing board and develops policy that does not harm Canadians and lowers our emissions.

1543 words