44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
- May/27/24 2:37:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some people think that Canada is too small to have any impact on climate change. On Thursday, Carbon Brief reminded us that it compiled data on greenhouse gas emissions dating back to 1850 to determine which countries are historically responsible for climate change.
Canada is in the top 10. It is by far the least populated country in the top 10, which means that Canada is the largest contributor to global warming per capita. Nevertheless, Canada continues to increase its oil production, particularly through the Trans Mountain pipeline. Encouraging harmful oil production means being responsible for climate change. When will the Liberals stop it?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:38:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would like to remind her that Climate Scorecard gave Canada a grade of 70% in 2024 for our climate change performance and that our greenhouse gas emissions dropped by over 50 million tonnes.
That is the equivalent of taking 15 million cars off our roads. We are getting there. We need to do our part in fighting climate change. Every sector of the economy and every region of the country must contribute to the fight against climate change.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:47:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a recent report outlines the devastating impacts of the climate crisis over the next decade. We can expect ecosystems collapsing, our emergency responses overwhelmed and a scarcity of vital resources. In the face of this, the Liberals keep breaking their climate promises. In fact, they are still allowing big polluters to increase their emissions. Meanwhile, the Conservatives cannot even agree on whether climate change is real.
The Prime Minister is meeting with his Youth Council. Is he going to be honest about how he is fuelling the climate crisis and endangering their future?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 2:47:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct my hon. colleague. Since before the pandemic, our emissions have gone down in Canada, and we have one of the best performances of all G7 countries when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions since 2019.
However, I would agree with the member that more needs to be done, which is why we have put together the first-ever national adaptation strategy, working with provinces, territories, indigenous nations and municipalities to ensure that we are better prepared to help Canadians and their communities face the impacts of climate change. This is something that, unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada cannot even bring itself to mention.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 6:59:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I probably do not have enough time to answer the question in the detail I would like, with regard to having a price on pollution and so forth, but I will pick up on the point about orphaned wells. We all need to recognize that there are orphaned wells and that it is very damaging to our environment. These wells have been there for generations. It is a question of whether we collectively, here in Ottawa, want to take some sort of action that is going to ensure that those orphaned wells are being addressed. If that means the federal government needs to be able to contribute in order to make that a reality, I think it is money well spent. There does need to be a higher sense of accountability from some of our oil companies. I have full confidence in our ministers, whether it is the natural resources minister or the Minister of Environment, to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability going forward on issues such as orphaned wells and the ways in which we can continue to diminish emissions.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:46:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to believe that my hon. colleague is sincere when he talks about false climate solutions. I mostly agree with him, but there is an issue I have to bring up. The Auditor General, through her office, has the commissioner of the environment. One of his most recent reports commented that about $7.4 billion of government money was spent on the net zero accelerator initiative with no oversight, no due diligence before the money was given out and no ability to track if any carbon emissions were reduced with this spending.
If he is sincere about his belief in ending the false climate solutions, will he commit to voting against future initiatives such as this instead of voting for them, as he has in the past?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:27:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of listening to Conservatives say, “But Canada's emissions are just a tiny drop in the bucket globally.” The unfortunate reality for the member, is that despite the fact that maybe the claim helps him sleep at night, Canada has among the worst GHG emissions per capita. As a matter of fact, if we look at the average GHG per capita emissions in Europe, we see that Canada's are three times those. There is only one country in the entire world that has worse GHG emissions per capita than Canada, and that is Australia.
What I found really interesting about the member's speech is that he talked at the beginning about how Conservatives like renewable energy, but then spent just about his entire speech talking about fossil fuel extraction. I am wondering whether the member could share with the House what his favourite type of renewable energy is.
160 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
Madam Speaker, 275 years ago, humankind went from using primarily wood-, peat- and coal-based energy to using steam energy, though it was often still produced using coal. That enabled first England and then other countries to enter the industrial age. The steam was mainly produced using coal. Oil was discovered and mainly used by industry. Today, other energy sources are available, thanks to the ever-changing state of knowledge.
Bill C-49 seeks to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. We are talking here not only about offshore oil and gas development but also about the implementation of offshore energy sources that could accelerate the energy transition. The second part has the potential to be useful.
Nonetheless, it is disappointing too. Our role in Parliament is to study bills, improve them in committee and pass them at various stages. I hope I am not telling anyone here anything new. The purpose of studying bills is to hear different points of view on how to improve the bills so that they meet the needs and realities experienced by our constituents. We represent all the constituents in our ridings, not just those who voted for us. As much as possible, the ideas that are heard have to help in reaching a consensus.
A minority government is wonderful because it is the most democratic of governments. Under such a government, everyone must sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith, and that is what we did. We negotiated in good faith. We voted for Bill C‑49 at second reading so we could improve it to create a vision for the future, a gateway to the future. Unfortunately, during the study in committee, the supposed benefits of a minority government did not pan out. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the bill at second reading, but all our amendments were rejected in committee.
Admittedly, the bill puts forward some interesting energy transition ideas. However, the oil and gas elements remain problematic for us. Some say that Canada is just a tiny drop in the world's ocean of greenhouse gas emissions, but our oil and gas are intended for export. They are intended to encourage the rest of the world to waste even more resources and further pollute the atmosphere. That is not how we envision the future, and that is one of the problems.
I would like to point out some other problems. Some examples include clause 4, which changes section 2.1 in the original act, and paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b), which give powers to the Governor in Council, including “amending the definition offshore renewable energy project” and “prescribing lines enclosing areas adjacent to the Province”. This can be done without consulting the elected representatives of these provinces, particularly if they are not part of the government of the day. These decisions can be made by the Governor in Council without any democratic consultation, either with parliamentarians or with the provinces concerned. That lacks transparency.
How can anyone believe that this is going to be done transparently? The government can tell me that this process will be transparent, but during the pandemic, drilling permits were issued in protected areas without consultation. What is more, the government said that it was going to resolve that problem by changing the boundaries of the protected area. From what we have seen in the past and from what we can read in the bill, we know that we will be seeing the same things today.
There are also some consistency issues. Perhaps I can expand on the answer that my colleague gave earlier.
This government claims to be green. It says that it will plant two billion trees and that it is encouraging the country to make the transition, and yet it continues to invest heavily in petroleum development and open the doors to that industry.
I think that we can all agree that we will continue to need petroleum because hospitals, especially, cannot do without it. It is used to create plastics that have helped us to save a tremendous amount of time when it comes to sterilization and safety in hospitals.
However, just because we still need petroleum does not mean that we have to continue with large-scale oil development until we are down to the last drop, just so we can make a pile of money. The day when we can eat money instead of food, then we can talk about it. Perhaps money will become more important than everything else, but that is a long way off.
Quebec, on the other hand, was the first government in North America to ban oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction. It was a societal choice. Was it an easy choice to make? Of course not. Every government wants royalties and more money, but at some point, being a statesperson means protecting the dignity of the weak. There is no one weaker than a fetus, than an unborn child, than the future generation or generations to come. There is no one weaker than that. We must ensure they are protected. We must ensure they have a future. If we develop every last drop without consideration for the next two, three, four and five generations, we are no longer worthy of being called statesmen and stateswomen.
I am still talking about consistency. On the one hand, the government wants to implement slightly greener energies. On the other, it wants to continue developing oil and gas. Developing oil and gas to send to international markets will cancel out any transition efforts. If the government want to be consistent, it needs to invest in the transition first and in oil and gas if necessary.
It is of the utmost importance, but I am not sure that people understand that. Speaking of inconsistency, Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have a plan to double oil and gas production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels a year. That is nearly one million barrels a day. That takes 100 new wells. How many offshore wind turbines will it take to make up for that? It simply boggles the mind. I could point to Bay du Nord, Trans Mountain and so on.
Offshore wind turbines, yes, but not just anywhere or any which way. There needs to be impact assessments and those assessments need to be done by independent organizations that are free from influence. Where is the promise to protect 30% of the oceans? How are we going to protect them, by drilling wells? How are we going to protect them when the definitions can be changed depending on which influences are being exerted on the governor in council or according to ideologies that are not based in facts?
Our role is to prepare and protect the future for future generations. Bill C‑49 could have lined up with our role of preparing and protecting the future, but it is unfortunately rooted in the past. It is a flying Dutchman that will cripple future generations and their quality of life.
1209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 9:48:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleague's question, I was reflecting on, if I could be frank this evening, the deep sadness that I feel, sitting in the chamber and hearing the Conservatives continually deny that we are in a climate crisis, continually try to stall any legislation that will move us forward in the direction that our children need, the direction that we need today, to see a sustainable future for Canadians and for people around the world. I feel sad to see that. My hope is that with legislation like this, with the support of premiers and with the support of people in provinces across Canada, we will see the changes necessary to have renewable energy, to see our greenhouse gas emissions reduced, to see caps finally placed on big oil and gas, and to see a future that my children and all of our children can be proud of, moving forward.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 10:01:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing I have been struck by in the debate around the government's response to the challenges associated with climate change is the praise of intentions, as if intentions are what matters most. It has been said, “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”
When it comes to offshore energy development, this could be a great opportunity to support European energy security, to displace dirtier forms of fuel in other parts of the world and to allow the development of green projects with less red tape. However, the government is piling red tape upon Canadian projects, the likely effect of which is actually more greenhouse gas emissions, because we are missing an opportunity to displace less secure, dirtier fuel around the world.
Does the member not think that good intentions are not enough, that we have to look at the results? In this case, the development of Canadian energy with less red tape is good for the environment insofar as it displaces less environmentally friendly sources of fuel around the world.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 10:03:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but there are several parts to it.
Of course, we need more than good intentions and hopes and dreams; we do need results. However, I think the argument that somehow Canadian energy is going to displace dirtier forms of energy around the world has not been substantially validated and, in many ways, Canadian energy has a higher GHG intensity when we are talking about oil products than many other sources of oil around the world. So, it is a bit of a problematic argument when you look at the energy mix that we are exporting as a whole, but certainly there are opportunities to export. British Columbia exports renewable energy south to the United States, and there are opportunities for exporting green hydrogen, for instance. So, we need to look at that opportunity.
However, one of the biggest things we need to do is meet the targets that the federal government promised the Canadian people that Canada would meet, and doing that means reducing our domestic emissions. One way to do that is to get off diesel power, get off coal power, and ensure that renewables are powering our electricity grid. I think that offshore wind and solar are ways that we can get there. It is a huge opportunity, and it is one we should not miss.
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member from the Bloc a little, and I am going to disagree with her a little as well.
I agree that this is a shoddy bill. The government has been warned. The Liberals and the NDP want to ram this through, and they have been reminded over and over again, including in some great speeches here tonight, of how this is going to end up in the courts, like Bill C-69. I agree with her on that. They are putting it through and they do not care. It is going to get stalled for years and they are going to blame everybody but themselves.
I find that I disagree with the Bloc, though, too. I agree a little more, if I could, about simplifying the environmental assessment process: one environmental assessment, federal or provincial. We do not need the double red tape taking years. The list goes on of the number of companies and projects that have been caught up in this.
The thing with the Bloc Québécois is that it wants to cancel, as an example, all offshore petroleum or the wonderful oil and gas sector, with a number of jobs in this country. The irony is that when we cancel a project here in Canada, what happens is that countries like Russia, Venezuela and other countries that do not give two hoots about emissions reductions are going to take up that limit. Trust me: They are not having the same conversations about conservation and good measures that we are having here in Canada.
The Bloc Québécois is saying these projects and paycheques belong in Canada, but it wants to export them around the world.
291 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
