SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

May/27/24 12:30:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, there is a bit of tortured logic there. This debate is supposed to be about Bill C-49, not about the price on pollution. My hon. colleague might want to read the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a specific mechanism requiring that a province and the federal government agree on everything and that provinces introduce legislation that is exactly the same as what is going through the federal House. It is something on which we must collaborate. It is something that was attacked by Stephen Harper. It is extremely important for the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. With respect to the price on pollution, we have had this conversation many times. Provinces and territories are very capable of coming up with pricing systems that they can put in place in their jurisdictions if they think they can do it better, as Alberta does with the industrial pricing system and as British Columbia does with the retail pricing system. Provinces have flexibility. My hon. colleague may deny the reality of climate change. He may continue to put his head in the sand and pretend that he is an ostrich. However, as I said before, at the end of the day, climate change is real. We have to take steps to address it. We have to work in a manner that will enable us to seize economic opportunities, as countries around the world are doing. The Luddite-type behaviour on that side of the House is shameful.

253 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

May/27/24 2:32:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing to see the misleading information that the hon. member puts forward. It is very clear, as 300 economists and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have said, that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. Our approach is one that addresses the existential threat of climate change and does so in a manner that is affordable for Canadians. To be honest, his constituents should be asking him, and I am sure they are, why he campaigned on putting in place a price on pollution in the last election and is now taking such a hypocritical position.

103 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

May/27/24 2:33:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that folks in the House are finally being honest. He is saying to just ignore the facts. Ignore the facts; make it all up. At the end of the day, eight out of 10 families get more money back. Every reputable authority says that. It is only the Conservatives, who campaigned on the basis of putting in a price on pollution, have now changed their minds and have no plan for the climate except to let the planet burn, who would take a position like that.

91 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

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

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/28/24

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.)

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