44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
- May/27/24 12:28:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, it is important to talk to folks in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. It is important for the federal government. It is important for federal political parties to be engaging this conversation about the opportunities of the future.
It is also the case that the governments of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador have been talking about this very actively. I was in Nova Scotia just six weeks ago to celebrate the conclusion of the FEED study for EverWind Fuels, one of the leading developers of offshore wind. This is the first FEED study that has actually been completed anywhere in North America with respect to hydrogen from wind and offshore wind. Some 300 business leaders came to celebrate this in a restaurant in Halifax; it is extremely important.
However, as I said before, it requires that the parties to this House, and the Conservative Party in particular, actually have a belief in the reality of climate change and have a view about the economic opportunities that would be enabled through this transition to a low-carbon future. When the Conservatives brought a climate denier, Ches Crosbie, a friend and adviser of the Leader of the Opposition to the committee to actually say that climate change is not real truly reflected the view of the folks who sit across the way. It is a shame.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:31:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is no doubt that we will cut the carbon tax scam, which will leave more money in Canadians' pockets.
She wants to talk about a food program. That food program has no food in it. The only thing these guys have been feeding over the last nine years is the already obese government.
What common-sense Conservative governments are going to do is axe the tax for good. Why not just call a carbon tax election so we can show them how it is done?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to go meet with economists at Université Laval to get a grasp of the very simple fact that eight out of 10 families are getting more money back than they are paying for the price on carbon.
The reason is very simple: The proceeds from the price on carbon are returned to Canadians. Wealthier Canadians pay more. Middle-class and lower-income Canadians receive more. It is as simple as that. In other words, eight out of 10 families are receiving more money back than they are paying for the price on carbon. This is true across the country, wherever the price on carbon applies.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:37:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if my colleague does not like the economists at Université Laval, there are plenty of economists across the country he can consult. Three hundred of them signed a letter that explains to the Conservatives, who are a bit hard-headed, that eight out of 10 families get more money back from the rebate than they pay because of the price on carbon. It is not complicated: All the proceeds from the price on carbon are returned to Canadians. Wealthier Canadians pay more. Middle-class and lower-income Canadians get more back in their pockets. Plus, of course, it reduces pollution.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:39:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that in recent years, we implemented a clean fuel standard, which the Conservatives promised to do during the last election campaign, but they changed their minds.
We continue to move forward with carbon pricing, which the Conservatives promised to do during the last election campaign, but they changed their minds. We have put in place methane regulations and a zero-emission vehicle standard to ensure that Canada has only zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
We are taking action to fight climate change and protect Canadians.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 includes more than $12 billion for carbon capture by western oil companies. It also includes $18 billion to help oil companies buy nuclear power plants, known as small modular reactors, to replace the natural gas used to heat the oil sands with polluted water, so that they can save the gas and export it instead, particularly through the Coastal GasLink pipeline.
Bill C‑59 gives the oil industry about $30 billion. Is that the Liberals' environmental plan?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:29:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the question of cutting things, we are being told by our constituents that the thing they want cut is the number of Liberal government seats, but the reality of what people are telling us is that the costs are significant and the carbon tax is really brutal. As the government, in its budget, continues to want to increase it, I am hearing from my constituents about cutting the carbon tax. Is that something my colleague is hearing about with the challenges of a redistribution wealth scheme versus an environmental plan?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:30:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, certainly the residents in my community, and across British Columbia and Canada, are saying they have had enough of this carbon tax, and they want to axe the tax. I cannot say how many people are phoning my office or meeting me and saying that they were voting for the NDP, or were voting for the Liberals, and they are not doing it again because of their poor management. The carbon tax is a case in point. If one looks at the facts and they realize that things are not working, they change their way of going.
There is a carbon tax, and we are against that because it is not working. It is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:44:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoy working with him. We often see each other in committee meetings. I thank him for his work.
He said some different things, but I agree with him on the fact that carbon capture is not really a way to fight climate change.
Canada has a bad track record, as members have mentioned today. One member referred to a study by Carbon Brief that shows that Canada has been the worst polluter in the world per capita since 1850. That is a big deal. The Liberals continue to make investments. According to an International Monetary Fund study, the government has directly and indirectly invested $38 billion U.S. in support to the oil industry.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Carbon capture is not effective. The government needs to stop investing in the oil industry. That is for certain. The carbon tax is one worthwhile measure. What are two or three other measures that a Green Party government would put in place to fight climate change?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:45:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, we agree with the Bloc Québécois on the fact that the government needs to eliminate all oil subsidies, including those pertaining to carbon capture and storage.
As a Green Party government, we would be much more ambitious. We would move more quickly and take this issue more seriously. We are in a climate crisis. That means that we need to make significant investments in public transportation. We need to electrify our grid across the country and we need to eliminate all oil subsidies.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:28:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what thrills me the most about the member's asking me the question is that he actually listened to my speech. He was actually impacted by what I said and he actually conceded that Canada contributes only 1.5% to global emissions. He went further to say that we are one of the highest per capita contributors to emissions.
However, what he fails to take into consideration is the vastness of our country and how much distance we all need to travel to drive our economy, to move our goods and services across the country and to move our food. He also never talks about the carbon capture of our many forests and our grasslands, which is something that is woefully missing from any discussion on that side.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:14:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have actually addressed this to the member a number of times. Members can see the light and have a change when they understand that this has been going on for a number of years, this carbon tax, and it does not work. Even former premier Christy Clark has come out against it. I am an example of something that can happen on that side if they would come to the truth and would just accept it. There could be change there, but I do not have high hopes.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:58:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. I am sure the member is hearing from his constituents; likewise, I am hearing from my constituents that they are eager to have a federal carbon tax election.
We have seen in some of the recent by-elections that this is resonating with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is certainly true in my region.
I talked about productivity and efficiency. One factor, any economist would tell us, is to have a competitive tax regime. Canada has a carbon tax, which has proven not to be effective at all in reducing carbon emissions and is just making our economy less efficient.
I say bring it on. We are ready for a carbon tax election. I would ask that the other opposition parties please vote with us. They should do what they are supposed to do and oppose the budget. Let us force a carbon tax election.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:22:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our carbon pricing approach reduces emissions. Environment and climate change modelling shows that Canada's emissions in 2021, the second year that the national minimum price on carbon pollution was in effect in Canada, would have been about 18 million tonnes higher in the absence of Canada's carbon pricing plan. Canada recently released the national inventory report, which tracks and reports on the country's GHG emissions. The report showed that Canada remains on track to meet our emissions reduction goals for 2030, and it shows that our emissions have been significantly reduced, by 44 million tonnes, compared to our prepandemic levels. The data is very clear: Carbon pricing works.
More than 90% of fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to individuals and households through the Canada carbon rebate. People get them through cheque or direct bank deposit every three months, and eight out of 10 families in provinces where the federal system applies receive more money back than they pay. Low and medium-income households actually benefit the most because they tend to spend less on energy-intensive goods, and they still collect the full amount of the Canada carbon rebate.
Of particular interest to the member opposite is the fact that households in rural areas and smaller communities receive a 20% top-up to their Canada carbon rebate, reflecting that they may face higher costs and have fewer short-term options to reduce their emissions. Canada's approach to carbon pricing is designed to protect affordability and to return all the proceeds back to Canadians. Those who need it the most receive more back than they pay.
Carbon pricing simply is not the cause of the increased cost of living. The data proves it year over year, and I am concerned with the opposite member's questions, because Canadians have been through a lot in the last five years, and they are struggling with the cost of living. We have heard numerous calls to scale back the carbon pricing system in response, but carbon pricing is not the problem; it is designed to help families, through the Canada carbon rebates. That is why a pause on pricing would not help families keep life affordable.
It can be tempting to put off action for the future in favour of other short-term goals and needs, but in the case of carbon pricing, we actually do not have to choose. We can take action to protect ourselves and our children against climate change without hurting Canadians' pocketbooks.
420 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
