44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 29, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, of course, when the government wants to invest just over $30 billion in clean technologies, names like that make a good impression. The government gets to feel like it is clearly investing in the environment. However, knowing that most of this money is going to the most polluting sectors of our economy, I wonder whether there is a way to ensure that this money is invested solely in renewable energy, not in the most polluting sectors. I do not know whether the strategy can be rewritten, but surely there is a way.
At this time, I cannot congratulate the federal government for investing in green energy when I see that it is investing most of its money in carbon storage, utilization and capture. As I was saying, this technology is still unproven. It is very expensive and yields very few results. Most companies have not yet begun to implement these technologies, and yet our greenhouse gas reduction targets are just around the corner.
How are we going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, even if we invest all this money? I do not know.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which clearly set out the Liberal government's inconsistencies and contradictions when it comes to the environment.
She had an excellent question for the Conservative leader, who does not talk about the environment and the climate crisis at all.
What does she think about the Conservatives' specious solution of using carbon capture to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, carbon capture and storage is not a solution. The UN tells us so. The OECD and the International Energy Agency tell us not to focus all our efforts on that, not to put all our eggs in the carbon storage basket, because it will not work. We will not be able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as much as we would like or hope.
The government is quite ambitious, I must say. It has set its greenhouse gas reduction targets fairly high. However, it is not doing anything to reach them. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development told us not long ago, in 2023, that a few measures here and there were good, but that the government was dragging its feet on implementing them. That is why it is not delivering results.
The Conservative Party says that we need to get into carbon capture and storage, which they say is a good idea. Clearly, the party has not been getting its information from scientists, because they say that carbon capture and storage is not a good idea.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 2:24:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back from his $80,000 vacation, which he got for free. He said, like most Canadians, friends welcomed him for that vacation. He took not one but two private jets paid for by the taxpayer, burning 100 tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. He wants to tax the heat and the food of Canadians.
Did he pay the full carbon tax on each of the 100 tonnes of emissions that he put into the atmosphere as part of his $80,000 vacation?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 2:25:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that greenhouse gas emissions are driving up grocery prices. He put 100 tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere for his personal vacation. This is high-tax, high-flying, high-carbon hypocrisy. Meanwhile, Canadians in Edmonton were facing -50°C temperatures on which they were paying carbon taxes just to heat their homes and to stay alive.
Given that he gives himself a free vacation at other people's expense, will he at least allow Canadians to heat their homes without his tax?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 3:11:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome back my hon. colleague to the House. I agree with her. I think that the profits of these companies must be addressed in the House and that is what our government is doing by putting in place measures like no other country in the world has.
We have put forward the world's most ambitious target to reduce methane emissions, a very powerful greenhouse gas, and reduce them by at least 75% by 2030. We have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies, the only country in the G20 to have done so. We are also in the process of putting a cap on the emissions of the oil and gas sector.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:31:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by wishing the parliamentary secretary a very happy birthday.
In the past few years, Canadians have witnessed record-breaking temperatures, extreme weather events, forest fires and flooding. People have been evacuated from their homes and whole towns have been wiped out, yet under the Liberal government, big oil and gas are polluting more than ever.
A recent report shows how these oil giants are significantly under-reporting their emissions. In fact, emissions from the oil sands are potentially 6,300% higher than what is reported by the industry. Scientists have confirmed what indigenous communities from northern Alberta have been saying for decades. These massive corporations are threatening their health, threatening their livelihoods and poisoning their land. This is making people sick.
Oil and gas companies are pumping out carbon emissions at shockingly high rates, and the government can and should make these companies use some of their record-breaking profits to clean up their mess. Oil and gas CEOs are giving themselves raises, being rewarded with obscene bonuses, and making millions of dollars a year, while Canadians are struggling just to get by. They are worried about how they are going to pay rent and worried about how they are going to make their mortgage payments.
At the same time, Canadians are facing record-breaking temperatures, the worst wildfire season on record and devastating weather events. We are in a climate emergency, so why does the Liberal government refuse to hold oil and gas giants accountable?
After dragging their feet and having to be pushed to finally deliver a cap on emissions for the oil and gas sector, the Liberals announced a watered-down cap, full of loopholes, that had oil and gas lobbyists' fingerprints all over it. The oil and gas sector makes up the biggest portion of Canada’s emissions, and environmental experts have said that Canada must have a hard cap on oil and gas emissions if we have any hope of meeting our climate targets.
The Liberals have set a target of reducing Canada’s overall emissions by 42%, but they are giving their friends in oil and gas a break. Not only did they give oil and gas a lower target, but they have included the option for companies to buy offsets and essentially buy their way out of the cap. They admit their plan will only reduce oil and gas emission by about 20%. This means every other sector and everyday Canadians will have to pick up the slack.
The Liberals are making life harder for people, workers and families. Can the member explain to me why they are making life easier for oil and gas CEOs?
451 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:34:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and friend for the well wishes on my birthday and for standing up for climate action at this time.
I cannot say enough or emphasize strongly enough how nice it is to stand up in the House of Commons and talk about how we fight climate change, not whether we fight climate change. With the Conservatives, day after day, asking the majority of the questions in this House, it is a challenge occasionally. The vast majority of Canadians I talk to, the vast majority of Canadians, full stop, demand climate action. They want to help lower our emissions. They want our government to take strong action, and one of those strong actions was indeed our oil and gas emissions cap.
It was just in December that our government, with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at COP, announced a very ambitious plan to lower our emissions with an oil and gas emissions cap. It is the first of its kind in the world. We are the fourth-largest producer of oil and gas in the world, and we are the first-ever country to produce a cap on emissions from oil and gas production. It is going to lead the way on lowering emissions from this sector as we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels going forward.
Like I said, as the world's fourth-largest producer, it is a strong signal that we are sending internationally to the sector and to our colleagues in the G7 and G20. We are taking a leadership role in the energy transition. We are aiming to achieve net-zero emissions from the oil and gas sector by 2050, and the emissions cap will ensure that we get there.
The challenge, of course, is to reduce emissions while building a stronger, more resilient economy of the 21st century. That is why we are not doing this alone. It requires consultation with the sector to ensure that we are protecting jobs and recognizing that oil and gas still have a role to play in our economy and our society. Last December, we published a proposed regulatory framework, and we look forward to hearing from stakeholders on the approach in this document in the months ahead.
On a more personal note, I am a member of the environment committee, and I am looking forward to working more closely with my colleague from Victoria on the environment committee. We had the CEO of Imperial Oil at committee, late in the last session. I had the opportunity to question that CEO, who earns, as the member mentioned, about $17 million a year. He earns that money for taking something from the planet and leaving it in a worse place. The oil and gas sector and the oil sands, as the member rightly pointed out, are responsible for the largest proportion of Canada's emissions, but it is also the most carbon-intensive fuel in the world. It has been shown just recently, in an article that I think we both read, that it is up to 6,500% higher than reported. For some of those compounds, which are called organic compounds, the rate at which they are going into the atmosphere is upwards of 6,000% higher than had been indicated, which is absolutely atrocious.
The question I had for that CEO was about the Kearl spill with respect to effluent from tailings ponds. They insist that those tailings releases, as they call them, into a tailings pond have no effect on the environment and no effect on people's health, which is absolutely untrue. It is absolutely not accurate to suggest that there is no effect. It is having an impact on water quality. It is having an impact on cancer rates. It is having a deleterious impact on the environment and the health of first nations around the Athabasca watershed. It is an absolute travesty.
I could not agree with my colleague more that we need to do more to ensure that we are protecting the environment from the oil and gas sector, and the oil and gas emissions cap is one way that we are doing that.
703 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:38:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is genuinely sincere in his desire to do more, and I agree that the Conservatives' climate denial is beyond disheartening, but Canadians do not want to have to choose between denial and delay. They do not want to have to choose between bad and worse. The reality is we are in a climate emergency. We do not have time for Liberal excuses. We do not have time for Liberal broken promises. We definitely do not have time for a government that caters to oil and gas interests. Our planet is burning.
When will the government stop disappointing Canadians, stop giving breaks to its rich friends and stop listening to oil and gas CEOs who are raking in record profits and unreal bonuses while polluting our planet, and instead start treating this like the emergency that it is, close the loopholes and bring in a hard cap on emissions?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:39:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again I want to emphasize that the CEO of Imperial Oil, Brad Corson, is not my friend. He is no friend of the environment, this government or the planet. That company is destroying the planet. Those operations are having a negative impact on the health and the well-being of the natural environment and the people who live on those lands and have done so, in the case of the first nations at Kearl, for millennia.
We will continue to hold oil and gas companies to account, and I will continue to demand better from oil and gas executives. However, our measures are working. We need to see the big picture on overall emissions. Overall, our emissions in Canada are on target, and they are coming down. In 2015, Canada was on a path for emissions in 2030 to be 9% higher than they were in 2005. Today, thanks to the work of so many Canadians, including that member, we are ahead of our initial 2030 target and firmly on track to meet the targets set out in our 2030 emissions reduction plan.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:44:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hate to start this way, but unfortunately I need to correct the member opposite. The claims that the carbon price is increasing the cost of living are categorically false. There is not one economist in this country who is pointing to carbon pricing, carbon taxing, pollution pricing or any variation of our plan to lower emissions by putting a price on pollution as what is causing inflation or causing a rise in the cost of living in Canada.
We must be targeted in our approach to providing relief to families, because there is absolutely no question that things cost too much, particularly groceries. However, one of the previous speakers tonight pointed to the work of Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, who said that it would be false to point to any one factor, including carbon pricing, as the leading cause, the number one cause or the primary cause of food inflation in Canada. I will repeat that claims that the carbon price are increasing the cost of living are false.
Most low- and medium-income households are actually far better off because of the way the system works. Our approach to carbon pricing is cost-neutral and sends cheques back to families four times a year, such that hundreds of dollars are back in the pockets of many families. The bulk of the proceeds from the price on carbon pollution go straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies. That means that eight out of 10 households get more money back than they pay, on average. When Conservative members stand in the House and say to axe the tax, what they are actually saying is that we ought to take money out of the pockets of families that need it most.
It is not as though our opinions matter more than math in this situation. We are allowed to have our own opinions but not our own facts. In this situation, it is simply mathematics. Calgary-based economist Trevor Tombe has done the math for us, indicating that pricing carbon in this country is not a leading cause of inflation and not a leading cause of the challenges Canadians are facing at the grocery store.
I am committed to lowering grocery prices. I am committed to lowering inflation and to making sure that families can afford healthy food at the grocery store, and that is why I will say once again that eight out of 10 households get more money back than they pay. Conservatives have continually said that Liberals are obsessed with the carbon tax. We are not the ones asking questions about it every single day. We have done the math, and it works. Our emissions are coming down, and eight out of 10 families, including almost all of them on the bottom three quintiles of the income scale, are better off.
We are also not quadrupling the carbon price this year; that is just plain misinformation. The fuel charge is a slow, steady increase in the cost of pollution, and it is designed to increase by $15 per tonne of pollution each year, which works out to about three cents on a litre of gas. Gas prices go up and down by 10%, 15% or 25% throughout the year, and we do not see that having an impact on groceries. When gas prices are up around $1.50 or $1.60, we see oil and gas companies profit as a result, and we do not see Conservatives stand in the House telling oil and gas companies to lower their prices because they are having an impact on the pocketbooks of Canadians. However, when we price carbon and send the money back to Canadian families, they are up in arms.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada has recognized that putting a price on pollution is contributing less than 0.2% to inflation each year. As I have said, because of our quarterly climate action incentive payments, the vast majority of low- and middle-income households are getting more back than they are paying in the carbon tax every single year. That is four times a year. Recently, at the beginning of January, families received their first cheque.
707 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 8:49:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, the misinformation from the other side is concerning. Economists have confirmed over and over again that our climate plan is not responsible for recent inflation. It is math. It is not refutable. It is not as though my opinion matters more than facts. Facts matter.
It is also true that we are not bankrupting any part of our economy. These claims are concerning and straight up wrong. We know that there are ways to make life more affordable for Canadians that do not ignore the reality of climate change and ways that will lead to potentially devastating costs further down the road.
Our climate plan is working, emissions are coming down, and it is a very conservative approach to use a market-based instrument to lower emissions. I suspect that is probably why the Conservatives ran in their last campaign on a market-based instrument on pricing carbon. They did not win the last election. We did, so we were able to implement our plan. I am eager to hear what their climate action plan might be in the next election. I suspect it might be nothing.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
