44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 10:14:51 a.m.
- Watch
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-402, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act (national strategy respecting pollution caused by shipping container spills).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my colleague, the MP for Courtenay—Alberni, for seconding this very important bill. Styrofoam, plastics and toxic chemicals, refrigerators, urinal mats and plastic pink unicorns are not items that one would expect to find in the ocean, yet this is exactly what is being found from cargo container spills. These things pollute marine ecosystems and wash up on Canadian shores.
As extreme weather events become more common and the demand for goods continues to escalate, it is necessary to develop a clear national strategy to not only clean up container spills in a timely, effective manner when they occur but to prevent them from happening in the first place.
We cannot sit by and wait for another disaster to occur. Today, I am tabling the bill to highlight this important issue once again. I call on the government to move forward with necessary solutions through amending the Marine Liability Act, by adding a national strategy respecting pollution caused by shipping containers.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 10:57:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the motion we have been presented with today calls for an economic analysis of the carbon tax. I would submit, however, that what is needed is a far more macroeconomic analysis of the climate change question. This should include, for example, the costs of climate inaction, particularly the increase in insurance premiums and the health costs associated with pollution-related risks. This is nowhere to be found in the Conservatives' motion, however.
I would like to know whether this is because, according to the Conservatives, there is no cost associated with climate inaction.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:04:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the data published today does not represent a comprehensive economic overview of the impacts of carbon pricing. Instead, it is background data related to a specific request from the PBO, which was then used to develop some of its analysis.
The Government of Canada has a collaborative relationship with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It always has collaborated and always will collaborate fully with the PBO's requests, including by providing the PBO with all specific documents and information that respond to its requests.
It should be recognized that the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays an important role in our democratic institutions. He assists all parliamentarians, be it in their day-to-day work or in long-term research, in order to enhance the quality of parliamentary debate and to promote greater transparency and budgetary accountability.
Unlike the Conservatives, who have a history of muzzling scientists, on this side of the House we value science.
Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that the fuel charge and industrial carbon pricing system together will account for almost 80 million tonnes, Mt, of greenhouse gas pollution reduction in 2030, compared to what would have happened without the carbon pricing. That represents about one-third of the currently projected total emission that will result from various actions being undertaken pursuant to the 2030 emissions reduction plan. If members take the time to look at the data that is being tabled today, that was requested for us by the PBO, they will see that according to the PBO we know that greenhouse gas emissions have already gone down by 25 million tonnes per year because of carbon pricing.
A full economic assessment of carbon pricing cannot be done without considering the benefits of reducing pollution and the cost of not taking action, which is something, unfortunately, that the Conservative Party continues to ignore. Currently, climate change costs Canadian households an average of $720 a year and is set to rise to at least $2,000 a year by 2050. Canadians are already feeling the cost of climate change through losses to communities and livelihoods from wildfires, floods and hurricanes.
To estimate the economic benefit of emissions reduction, the Government of Canada uses a value known as the social cost of carbon. It quantifies the damages at $294 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in 2030. Canada's current social cost of carbon is the same value used by the United States government. Using that metric, the avoided cost for climate change in the year 2030 associated with the projected emissions reduction benefit of carbon pricing is about $23.1 billion per year. The social cost of carbon analysis is a core part of climate policy assessments used by many countries, as it reflects the reality of the growing impacts of climate change on current and future generations and is a standard methodology internationally recognized for estimating the benefits of reducing emissions.
Abandoning carbon pricing without replacing it with other actions would forgo those benefits, and replacing it with more costly policy measures would significantly and unnecessarily increase the cost to Canadians, which is another thing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has publicly recognized a number of times. In fact, a report from the Ecofiscal Commission concluded that carbon pricing would grow Canadians' incomes on average by $3,300 in 2030 relative to an alternative policy approach.
The increased costs of climate change are well documented.
For example, the Canadian Climate Institute document I referenced earlier tells us that by 2030, the annual costs of climate change impacts on Canada's GDP will be in the order of $35 billion. What is more, numerous studies have shown that the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of implementing measures to combat climate change.
639 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:13:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I said it in French, but I will say it again in English and remind the member that Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies last year. The numbers he is referring to precede 2023. That is the first thing.
Second, we need to tackle climate change pollution coming from all of the sectors, including the oil and gas sector in Canada. That is why we have already put in place regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector by at least 45% by 2025, next year. We will ramp those up to at least 70% by 2030. That is also why we are putting in place a cap on oil and gas emissions.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:53:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member spoke about misinformation that Conservatives were spreading and seemed to question why, but the answer to that question is quite obvious. The Leader of the Opposition likes to spread misinformation because he sees political opportunity from it, but what he cannot debate is the data that was released today. The data that was released today categorically shows that the price on pollution, the carbon tax, is now lowering emissions by 25 million tonnes per year and that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off as a result of the rebate that they receive as opposed to what they pay.
Would the member agree with that factual information?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this with great amusement, as well as to the members' references as to why we have not actually been addressing the motion. As the member opposite said, the motion is actually quite irrelevant at this point. I want to talk a bit about what the Conservatives have been doing recently in terms of actually wasting the time and resources of the House; the current motion is another example of that.
I sit on the environment committee, and we repeatedly get these motions from the Conservative Party asking to produce this, to produce that and to produce all the information on the model. I am not quite sure what they do with the information when we produce it. However, it is incredibly costly for the government to produce all these documents, in both official languages, solely to be used for political purposes.
The Conservatives talk about the price on pollution program. First, they spread misinformation in calling it a carbon tax. We know that it is a levy. As reaffirmed today by the parliamentary budget office, the rebate associated with the levy benefits eight out of 10 households across the country. However, the Conservatives repeat time and time again that it is impacting affordability for Canadians. The Conservatives like to scare people and say it is part of the problem and not the solution. They never, ever talk about the real problem that we are facing with climate change.
Liberals know there is an affordability issue. We have been working very hard to introduce measures to help Canadians with the affordability crisis, which was largely the result of the postpandemic economy combined with supply chain disruptions from the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. We acknowledge that there is an affordability crisis, and we have been addressing it. However, the Conservatives vote against every program we introduce to address the affordability crisis. They then introduce scare tactics and motions that say the price on pollution program is the problem, and it is causing all the problems in Canada.
Well, I have said it before and I will say it again: The Conservatives not only need lessons in basic math, but they also need lessons in causality and correlation. Just because things happen at the same time does not mean they are caused by the same thing. The Conservatives do this over and over again. We can look at the price on pollution program, and we can see that when the carbon levy was increased, inflation came down. Do the Conservatives ever discuss that? How do they explain that if, in fact, it is the price on pollution that is causing inflation?
We can look beyond our borders to other countries and see that inflation has been worse in those countries. Some do not have the same kind of price on pollution program we have; they have different programs to address climate change. How does that work, if the price on pollution program is causing inflation and our affordability crisis? Is our price on pollution program here in Canada causing global inflation? Are we that powerful? Does it make that big a difference? I do not think so, and I do not think the Conservatives think that either. I think that they believe it is to their political advantage to continue to say that this is what is causing the problem.
However, let us look at this in terms of what it is doing. Once again, today, the parliamentary budget office reconfirmed that eight out of 10 Canadian households receive more back in the carbon rebate than they pay through the levy. The only households that may not do better through this program, for which it does not address affordability, are those making over $250,000 a year; yesterday, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say the same households were the poor, the ones who needed help. The Leader of the Opposition was arguing that households that realized capital gains of over $250,000 a year somehow needed a tax break. I do not know where the Conservatives have been looking at Canadians and Canadians' wages and their livings, but those people I know who realize capital gains of more than $250,000 a year or who make more than $250,000 a year are generally not the ones lining up at food banks. They are generally not the ones having problems paying for dental care or child care.
When we talk about the Canadians whom the government is helping, we are talking about the Canadians who do need help, not the wealthy and the corporate elites who are making more than $250,000 a year, either in earned income or in capital gains. For the people who earn less than $250,000 a year, who have capital gains of less than $250,000 a year or who perhaps do not have a corporation they are putting their income into at a lower tax rate so they do not pay the normal earned income tax rate, the programs we have put in place over the past year, and I would say since 2015, have benefited them.
The price on pollution will not only address the affordability crisis; it also addresses the climate crisis. Unlike those of us who agree that there is an affordability crisis and a climate crisis, it seems that many members on the opposite side, in fact some of the members who sit on the environment committee with me, do not acknowledge there is a climate crisis.
Some of the questions that are asked in committee and some of the witnesses that they bring are so astounding that I want to fall off my chair. Some of the other witnesses who know the science, know the facts, actually look like they are going to have a problem in committee, and I worry about them because of some of the things that are being said.
We need to have a government whose members all understand that the climate crisis is real and that not taking action is not a possibility; it is not an option. We have to take action, and we know from experts around the world, from experience in other countries and from experience here in Canada, in British Columbia, that a price on pollution program works. In fact, we have been told again that 30% of the reduction in emissions we are putting out will be from the price on pollution program. We have already seen the reduction in carbon emissions due to the price on pollution program, and the data has been presented again and again.
All the Conservatives can do to address that is to say, “Let's see every detail of the model.” In fact, they wanted a spreadsheet. The modelling that is used to look at what the economy would do under a price on pollution scenario or without a price on pollution scenario is so complex and so great that we were told that a mainframe would have to be brought in. The data could not be given to the Conservatives, and they could not start to analyze it themselves.
Nonetheless, they demanded that from ECCC, which has a lot of very important work to do on things like the biodiversity legislation that is being advanced to protect 30% of Canada's nature, and the really important work to do in helping Canadians adapt to climate change. That work is being supplanted by producing more and more documents, in both official languages, and that is irresponsible. For members of the House, a party, to be trying to set us back in that way is completely irresponsible.
I hope that Canadians listening to the debate today will understand that yet another Conservative motion means time being used in the House of Commons, time being used in committee, and time when we would be asking departments to produce documents so the Conservatives can nitpick and try to find little things that they think are not exactly correct. They do this rather than listening to 300 experts from around the world and rather than looking at the science, the facts and the data to see the evidence that not only is there a climate crisis but also that a price on pollution program will help address that crisis and benefit their constituents as well as mine.
We need to support Canadians through the affordability crisis, and we need to support Canadians now and in the future by fighting the climate crisis. That is exactly what our government is doing, and I really wish the Conservatives would get on board and move forward instead of moving backwards.
1455 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour today of a very reasonable motion that I believe members of Parliament from all parties should support, moved today by the leader of the official opposition.
When making any major decision, it is important to weigh the costs and the benefits. That is true in the private sector, true in life in general and especially true for politicians when we are deciding on government policy. That includes environmental policy, and the Liberals' carbon tax, their hallmark policy meant to address global warming and climate change, should be no exception.
When the Liberals introduced their carbon tax in 2019, it was set at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalents, a little over 4¢ on a litre of gas. Since then, the Liberals have increased the carbon tax every year so that it now stands at $80 per tonne, about 18¢ per litre. The Liberals say that they will continue to increase the carbon tax every year for the rest of the decade until it reaches $170 per tonne, about 40¢ on a litre of gas.
To look at it another way, if the gas tank of a typical car holds about 50 litres of gas, that means that in 2030, the average Canadian will pay an extra $20 on a tank of gas each and every time he or she fills up the car at the gas station.
However, the carbon tax applies to so much more than just filling up one's tank with gas. It applies to home heating. It applies to heating of commercial businesses. It applies to heating of schools, hospitals and municipal buildings. It applies to farmers who have to heat their barns and dry their grain, which is why the Conservatives have been advocating for the passage of Bill C-234 to exempt farmers' grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that these costs would not be passed on to consumers.
In fact last winter, Environment and Climate Change Canada was even going so far as to contact pizzeria and bagel shop owners about their wood-burning ovens, to see whether they should be subject to the carbon tax. Fortunately, it did not go through with the measure, but it shows just how wide-ranging and sweeping the Liberals' carbon tax has been on every aspect of Canadians' lives.
It seemed perfectly reasonable that, last April, the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested from Environment and Climate Change Canada its internal analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax. When Environment and Climate Change Canada responded last month, there was one sentence in the reply letter that was very troubling. It read, “The data the Department is providing contains unpublished information. As such, I request you to ensure that this information is used for your office’s internal purposes only and is not published or further distributed”.
I see no good reason for the government's analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax to be withheld from members of Parliament or from Canadians at large. If we as elected officials are responsible for making the best decisions possible for Canadians, if we are responsible for weighing the costs and the benefits of the policy, then it makes no sense for the costing analysis to be withheld.
This morning, because of today's motion, the Liberal government released at least part of the information. We now know, according to the government, that the carbon tax is costing the Canadian economy $20 billion per year, roughly $1,200 per household. I have to say that it is extremely frustrating that a government that once claimed to be transparent by default is still playing games and blocking access to important information.
Now that I have outlined some of the costs of the carbon tax, I think that it is fair for Canadians to ask, “What are the benefits?” The stated objective of the carbon tax is to prevent global warming and climate change, so this question has to be asked: “By how many degrees Celsius has global warming decreased as a result of Canada's carbon tax?” That question is fundamental to the whole issue. Is it half a degree Celsius? Is it 0.1°C? Is it 0.01°C? Canadians deserve to know what we are getting for that extra $20 on a tank of gas.
I would like to read a quote from the government's report entitled “How Pollution Pricing Reduces Emissions”, which was referred to in the department's response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The first line of the report reads, “Every day, we see the increasing impacts of climate change and they’re costing Canadians more and more.”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
837 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:39:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me reiterate the quote from the department's report. It reads, “Every day, we see the increasing impacts of climate change”. Right off the bat, one has to infer that the carbon tax must not be working very well if the department's own report is telling us that every day, we we are seeing increasing impacts of climate change.
The report continues, “A price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to the more intense wildfires, droughts, and floods caused by climate change.” That is fair enough. If that is the position the government wants to take, then that is fine. All we are asking on this side of the House is if the government could please show its work, all of its work, not just what the minister grudgingly released this morning.
It should not take a full day of parliamentary debate to drag the government, kicking and screaming, into being transparent. The report mentions wildfires, so that raises this question: how many fewer wildfires have we had as a result of the carbon tax? The report also mentions droughts. How many fewer droughts have we had as a result of the carbon tax? The report mentions floods. How many fewer floods have we had as a result of the carbon tax? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I strongly suspect that the effect of Canada's carbon tax on all of these things is infinitesimally insignificant.
However, if Environment and Climate Change Canada has done some analysis and some studies to shed light on these subjects, I, as a member of Parliament, would certainly like to read them, without having to resort to a full day of parliamentary debate.
It is very reasonable for Canadians to ask if there is a better way. I believe there is: technology, not taxes. Canada has tremendous potential for the development and application of new environmentally friendly technologies. At the environment committee, experts shared research with committee members about the benefits of irrigation and how increased agriculture production can sequester more carbon out of the atmosphere with improved irrigation.
In the southeast corner of my home province of Saskatchewan, there is a major carbon capture and storage facility at a coal-burning power plant, which allows for the existing infrastructure to remain in place while storing carbon under the ground instead of releasing it into the air. In northern Saskatchewan, there are massive reserves of uranium, which can be used in nuclear reactors to generate electricity without any emissions.
However, if we are going to plot the best way forward and make good public policy decisions, then we need to have good information on which to base our decisions. That means the government must be transparent by default, as it promised to do years ago. Therefore, I support the motion that would require the government to produce all of these relevant documents.
504 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 1:45:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite made a speech that referred to the fact that we have not seen an immediate impact from the price on pollution program. He mentioned that he and his colleague, who asked the other question, are both on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
I was wondering if perhaps the member could explain a little to us about his knowledge of how we got to this climate crisis, how long it took for the inventory to build up and what the impacts of climate change are. I am sure that he has done a lot of reading about this issue, since he is on the environment committee. I would really be interested to hear his perspective on why he believes that a crisis that took decades to build, with emissions that Canada, as well as the rest of the world, has been putting into the air, would be solved in a matter of years.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 2:22:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague and friend, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, often says in the House, members of the Conservative Party of Canada are entitled to their opinions, not their own sets of facts.
The facts are clear. Eight out of ten Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than it costs them. Not only that, but the data also shows that carbon pricing is already responsible for a reduction in the pollution level of 25 million tonnes. That is half of our emission reduction so far.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 2:23:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think we have established in the House that math is not the forte of the Leader of the Opposition. He has a hard time counting past six, which is the number of homes built through social housing when he was the minister responsible for housing.
However, the facts are clear: Eight out of ten Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than the pricing system costs. Not only that, but carbon pricing is responsible for half of our emission reduction. Because of carbon pricing, there is less pollution in the atmosphere in Canada by 25 million tonnes.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 2:33:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how the Conservative Party of Canada and those members who campaigned to put in place a price on pollution can look anyone in the eyes. How can they look anyone in the eyes and say, “We are doing nothing to protect you against forest fires, we are doing nothing to protect you against hurricanes, and we are doing nothing to protect you against flooding”?
The Conservatives have no plan for the economy. They have no plan for climate change. They have no plan to work with communities to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 2:34:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House to actually go and talk to the PBO and the 300 economists who have said eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. They say it is those living on modest incomes who actually do the best.
I would say the collective amnesia that actually exists on the other side of the House is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Every one of those members, including the member opposite who asked the question, campaigned on putting in place a price on pollution. It is hypocrisy.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 3:37:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Uxbridge.
I would like to start by setting the record straight. Pollution pricing is a key tool for fighting climate change and supporting Canadians.
Canadians know climate change is a real and serious threat to all of us. They have asked governments across the country to take action and to do our part to reduce the carbon pollution that is causing climate change. They also recognize that climate action needs to work with the economy, both to keep life affordable and to support the development of clean technologies here at home and to export around the globe.
Canada, alongside other international partners, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, the Republic of Korea and many others, recognizes carbon pricing is a powerful tool to achieve all these goals. The World Bank confirmed that there are now 75 carbon pricing instruments in place worldwide at the national and subnational levels.
This is not surprising. As economists and experts keep telling us, carbon pricing is the lowest cost and most effective tool to reduce carbon pollution. A price on pollution sends a signal across the economy. Each individual and business integrates that signal into their day-to-day decisions, finding ways to pollute less, so they can save money. The choice of when and how to act is left up to them. That is what makes carbon pricing so powerful.
Canada's approach to pricing pollution is flexible. Provinces and territories can adopt their own system if it meets minimum national standards. It was set up that way in recognition of the fact that Quebec and British Columba have had their own mechanism for over a decade. In provinces and territories that do not have a price on pollution, the federal system applies.
The federal pollution pricing system is revenue neutral. All revenue is returned to the provinces and territories where it was collected. In provinces where pollution pricing applies, most of the revenue is returned to Canadians via the carbon rebate four times a year. For eight out of 10 households in Canada, the rebate is more than the carbon tax they pay.
This rebate is designed to benefit lower- and middle-income families the most. The exact payment depends on the number of people in the household and which province they live in. A family of four in Alberta, for example, will receive a Canada carbon rebate of $1,800 this year, and more if they live in a rural community. The price signal on carbon pollution still works even though money goes back to households because of how the Canada carbon rebate is designed. Spending more on fossil fuels does not give someone a larger rebate. Households get their Canada carbon rebates regardless of how many cars they have, how they heat their home and how they get to work.
If people make an effort to use less fossil fuel by carpooling, for example, driving an electric vehicle or installing a heat pump in their home, every dollar saved goes back into their pockets. They still get the incentive. People who do not see the short-term importance of transitioning to clean energy or using less fossil fuel are still protected from the effects of the cost of living because the climate action incentive payment gives back more to most Canadian families than they pay.
Our approach to pollution pricing is working. Estimates show that pollution pricing contributes roughly one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved by Canada's emissions reduction plan in 2030.
Putting a price on pollution is the simplest and most effective way to fight climate change. It encourages entrepreneurs to find innovative solutions, invest in clean technologies and transition to renewable energy. Clean energy and low-emission technologies are among the greatest opportunities of our time.
Canada's greenhouse gas offset credit system is also an important part of our pollution pricing mechanism, providing economic opportunities for municipalities, indigenous communities, farmers and project proponents. This encourages them to undertake innovative projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs and participate in the carbon credit market.
While other tools like regulations and incentives have an important role to play in Canada's climate plan, without carbon pricing, any climate plan will be more expensive and will miss opportunities for innovation. A price on carbon pollution is cheaper than other options, supports affordability and creates new markets for the new technologies we need.
753 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 3:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is that we will always be there for Canadians and Quebeckers. We will ensure that they have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Thanks to our price on pollution, eight out of 10 families in Canada are getting more money back than they spend.
Once again, I think it is a good system, one that is also recognized across the world.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 3:48:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to this important issue dealing with climate change and a price on pollution. It is a shame, however, that the Conservatives, once again, use an opposition day to promote their ideology. They work hard every day in the House to simply promote a set of opinions that they purport to be facts.
The motion does give us an opportunity to speak about something that at I think is on the minds a lot of Canadians, and that is climate change and the impacts of that.
While the Conservatives have no plan to deal with climate change, we have been steadfast and focused on ensuring that future generations have a planet and that with the impacts of the rapidly changing climate, our communities are going to be resilient. Investments need to be made, and all orders of government have a role to play in dealing with the impacts of climate change.
It is also crucial that we reiterate this. The government's carbon pricing plan is one of the most effective ways to implement change, but it also puts more money into the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadian families. I want to speak to some facts to ensure that Canadians hear the numbers that we are dealing with. The average Canadian family in Alberta is $723 ahead with the price on pollution. In Ontario, my home province, a family is $255 ahead with the rebate.
The Conservatives want to take that rebate away. However, what they do not address is that climate change is real and that the impacts and the costs that Canadians face as a result do not go away. This rebate allows for 100% of the revenues collected in the jurisdiction to go back to that same jurisdiction. It allows Canadians to invest in some greener choices, if possible, but it also allows them to offset some of the costs associated with climate change and the impacts that we face.
I spent nearly a decade in municipal politics before running to serve my community of Pickering—Uxbridge in this place. One of the things we dealt with the most at the municipal level was infrastructure and how we could put infrastructure in place that was resilient and adaptable to the changing climate and storms. We used to refer to “hundred-year storms”, which were happening more and more.
Our plan also supports municipalities that need help to ensure their communities truly are resilient and can adapt to what we see more often. We saw catastrophic wildfires in the country. We have seen flooding. In my community of Uxbridge, we had a horrible tornado that damaged businesses, infrastructure, other important community spaces and the homes of individuals.
The cost of inaction is far greater than any proposal to put a price on pollution, but that is something the Conservatives feel everybody should deal with on their own. They do not think the federal government has a role to play in ensuring that communities are resilient. The federal government is going to be there for individuals who are impacted.
The irony in all of this is that the Conservatives know that Canadians care deeply about climate change and the impacts on our planet. In the last election, the Conservatives actually ran on a price on pollution. However, their plan reminded me a lot of going to an arcade, buying tickets and trading them in for a prize. I think there was a bike on the list, gift cards and things like that.
What Canadians can really use to help deal with affordability issues and resiliency in their own homes in dealing with climate change is cash, not a gift card for a bike or Tim Hortons. That is exactly what Conservatives ran on, because they realized that not dealing with climate change was not politically viable.
If we fast-forward to the current leader, they want Canadians to forget that climate change is real, that the impacts are real, that the financial costs are real and that our government's plan is not only reducing emissions but also ensuring there is more money in the pockets of Canadians, like I said, in eight out of 10 families. That is precisely what Conservatives do not want to talk about. They want Canadians to think that this is some sort of ideology and tax policy, when it is ensuring Canada's future. It is ensuring affordability for Canadians, and it is ensuring that we are reducing emissions in a way that allows Canadians to move forward in that work together. It is about fairness. It is about ensuring that our communities are resilient. It is about supporting each other as we experience more severe weather events right across this country. It is about making sure there is more money in the pockets of Canadians right across this country.
Conservatives do not have a plan to deal with the environment, so they are trying to distract Canadians from the reality. I think they are going to be in for yet another surprise when they realize that Canadians care deeply about this issue. They care deeply about the environment and want Canada to be a leader. If we want to talk about the economy, countries around the world, in trade and doing business with other countries, are going to expect each country to have a very real plan to deal with climate and reduce carbon emissions. Canada will lag behind if we do not address the very real issues of the world and if we do not do it in an economically responsible way.
It is a shame that this motion was brought forward today. It would be incredibly important for this House and Parliament to constantly debate the very real issues of climate change. Unfortunately, Conservatives want to pretend it does not exist. In the last speech, we heard about the fact that this plan will have a one-third reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, the equivalent of seven million more cars off the roads. These are very real results.
We are making our communities resilient, focusing on affordability issues for all Canadians and making sure that it is not free to pollute anymore. Canadians will be watching. They will see that if anyone who runs for office and wants to hold the highest position in this country is not serious about climate change, they are not serious about Canada's future and they are certainly not serious about Canada's economy.
1098 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 3:58:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the irony in that question is unbelievable, given the cuts that were made to our independent public servants under the Conservative government whenever they had opinions that did not suit the Conservative government. In fact, we have said time and time again that eight out of 10 Canadian families would be better off under our pricing of pollution. Over 300 economists have also confirmed that, but Conservatives do not want to be confused by the facts.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 4:15:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I found the member opposite's speech interesting, and he spoke about everyday people in his riding.
Was he thinking about those everyday people while he was dining in London, England, having $1,800 worth of champagne, eating porterhouse steak and chateaubriand, on a trip that cost over $7,000 and was paid for by the Canadians for Affordable Energy? We should not let that name fool us. It is a group that advocates against pricing pollution.
While he was sipping on champagne, were they working on the motion to ensure that they make pollution free again and that Canadians are on the hook to deal with climate change on their own?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 4:54:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to discuss some of the government's key actions to combat climate change, cut pollution and drive clean technologies.
In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, our cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activity in communities across Canada.
The latest science warns that to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly, and urgently, to hold the global average temperature increase at 1.5°C.
The government is taking this seriously. We have a plan to reduce Canada's emissions by 40% to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Carbon pricing is the cornerstone of our plan. Since 2019, every province and territory has had a price on carbon pollution. Some provinces, like B.C. and Quebec, have had carbon pricing in place for much longer than that. The question is why. It is because it works.
It creates powerful financial incentives for industries and individuals to take concrete steps to reduce their emissions and invest in clean options. Carbon pricing has proven to be effective around the world and here in Canada. We remain focused on ensuring that it is designed to keep life affordable for Canadians. Over 90% of the federal fuel charge proceeds go back to households via quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments delivered to families by cheque or direct deposit. The majority of households, particularly lower- and middle-income households, get back more through these rebates than the cost of the fuel charge.
We are also working with provinces and territories, as well as other stakeholders, on ensuring that carbon pricing and our credit markets remain effective across the country and drive the big investments needed to decarbonize industry. Most provinces in Canada maintain their own carbon pricing systems for industry, which have broad support across businesses and experts in Canada.
Our federal and provincial systems for pricing carbon pollution from industry are designed to send a strong carbon price signal that creates a powerful incentive for all polluters to reduce their emissions.
For every tonne of pollution reduced by an industrial polluter, either they avoid paying the carbon price or they can earn a credit that they can sell to other emitters. These trading systems are key to protecting industry's competitiveness while still driving emissions reductions, and all proceeds collected under Canada's pricing system for industry are used to further support industrial decarbonization and clean electricity incentives.
We also recognize that many Canadian industries are trade-exposed, competing in the global market. That means that too heavy a hand will just shut down production and lead to carbon leakage, more production by competitors outside of Canada who may face a lower carbon price. That is not going to accomplish anything, not emissions reductions and not economic growth.
Our system, however, as well as provincial and territorial systems for industry, is carefully designed to achieve both. The clean fuel regulations in place since 2022 are another market-based instrument that will accelerate the use of clean technologies and fuels and support good jobs in a diversified economy. In fact, they are expected to deliver up to 26.6 million tonnes of emissions reductions annually by 2030, which is a significant contribution to our emissions reduction target.
We have already seen significant investments in the energy sector as a result of the incentives from the clean fuel regulations. Since the announcement of the regulations, over $53 billion in investments have been announced across Canada in low-carbon industry fuels such as green hydrogen, renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel.
For example, Imperial's renewable diesel complex at its Strathcona refinery near Edmonton is under construction. Once completed, it will produce more than one billion litres per year of renewable diesel from locally-sourced feedstocks. Covenant Energy will start construction of a renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel production facility in Saskatchewan this year, with production expected to start in 2026. Another example, Braya Renewable Fuels, has finalized the retrofit of the refinery at Come By Chance, Newfoundland, right in my riding of Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. I was delighted to attend the opening and the celebration of the first renewable diesel being produced in Come By Chance. It has saved the refinery and salvaged it from closure, and now people in the region are seeing long-term, sustainable jobs for decades ahead.
These companies, and others like them, will be able to create and sell valuable credits for supplying low-carbon fuel to Canada. These are the types of economic investments that the clean fuel regulations are supporting in Canada.
The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy is achieved in a way that is fair and predictable for businesses. It supports Canadian jobs, as I just alluded to in Come By Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Canada's international competitiveness.
Climate change is arguably the defining issue of our time. Canadians want to be a part of the solution. The government is taking concrete action to cut emissions and to create incentives and opportunities for new investments and technologies.
892 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:19:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to come to southeastern Saskatchewan and visit a carbon capture and sequestration plant. There are tons of examples of what has legitimately been done in Saskatchewan. I was proud to be part of the government that brought in the world's first scalable carbon capture and sequestration plant, which has been working wonderfully. It has taken the equivalent of millions of cars off the roads in terms of pollution, which is one reason to use technology over taxes. It worked well and cleaned up our environment.
Other manufacturers will continue to use carbon capture. Evraz is looking at doing it. With the upgrader, the Co-op Refinery is looking at doing it. If Liberals would just take their heads out of the sand and look at the technology, there would see a lot of examples in Saskatchewan. They have beneficial effects on the environment, unlike a tax plan such as the Liberals' carbon tax.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
