Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I have been Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for a year and our emissions are down 9% below 2005 levels. Let us keep going. I will quote, again, the premier of New Brunswick, Premier Higgs, who decided to go with the federal pricing system. He said, “What this does right now is provide relief.” We can fight climate change and support Canadians. We agree with the premier of New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague just said in the House is simply not true. Federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system, which was implemented before the federal government introduced carbon pricing. I would also like to remind my colleague and all of the Conservatives across the way that climate change affects farmers across the country just as it affects all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, for most of us in the House, and for most Canadians, climate change is the reality and facts do matter, though I know not for everyone. The facts are that greenhouse gas emissions are down 9% below the 2005 level. That is a fact. Methane emissions in the oil and gas sector are down almost 40% two years before scheduled. That is another fact. EV sales in Canada have doubled in the last few years. That is another fact. If they will not take it from me, and they will not take it from environmentalists, maybe they will take it from the oil sands Pathways Alliance, which said, “With positive industry and government collaboration”—

Mr. Speaker, if they will not take it from me, they will not take it from environmentalists and they will not take it from experts, maybe they will take it from the Cement Association of Canada, which said about our climate change plan, “Emissions Reduction Plan provides cement industry with predictability”. Electricity Canada welcomed the smart renewables and electrification pathways program. The oil sands Pathways Alliance, the five largest oil sands producers in the country, said, “With positive industry and government collaboration, Canada has an incredible opportunity to help provide for global energy security while being a leader in producing clean energy.” That is what we are doing on this side of the House. We are fighting climate change. We are creating jobs and the economy of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat rich coming from the opposition that flip-flops on carbon pricing faster than I can flip my pancakes in the morning. One minute, the Conservatives are in favour of carbon pricing. The next minute, they are not. The minute after that, they are for carbon pricing. In the last election, the members of the opposition campaigned on carbon pricing and now they are saying they—

Mr. Speaker, Fort McMurray forest fires cost Canadians almost $6 billion; Alberta floodings in 2013, almost $4 billion; the ice storm in Quebec, $3 billion; atmospheric rivers in British Columbia, $8 billion. These are only a few of the examples of the increasing cost to Canadians of climate change. What is the answer from this reckless opposition party? It is to make pollution free again. That is unacceptable. On this side of the House, we will support Canadians and we will fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, my son, like tens of thousands of kids across this country, loves to play hockey, and what he loves above all is to be able to play it outside. However, because of climate change in this hockey-playing country, it is becoming less and less possible to do so. This year, for the first time in 51 years, the Rideau Canal is still not open and probably will not be able to open. What is the response from the Conservative Party of Canada? It is to make pollution free again. There are no reckless policies from the party on this side of the House.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South. I am pleased to take part in today's debate. I would like to say that the Conservatives introduced an opposition day motion to talk about the importance of fighting climate change, but they are not quite there yet. The Conservative Party has had a new leader for 150 days already and yet it still does not have a plan to tackle climate change. It is anybody's guess as to when its plan will be ready. Last time, it took the Conservative Party nearly a year after choosing its previous leader to come up with a plan to fight climate change. As many members know already, Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Our 2030 emissions reduction plan tabled last March lays out how we will get there. Pollution pricing is the backbone of our climate strategy. It is foundational, because it has been proven to work all over the world, not only to drive down carbon emissions but also to raise innovation and energy efficiency, and to create jobs in the emerging green economy. It also supports and amplifies every other climate measure, and creates an incentive to invest in low-carbon solutions across the economy. Conservatives used to know this. In fact, carbon pricing is the kind of market-based mechanism that earlier generations of fiscal Conservative thinkers used to embrace. Many in the Conservative Party, including the Leader of the Opposition's own communication director, used to support carbon pricing, or at least he did until he started working for the Conservative Party. Today's Conservatives are penny-wise and pound foolish. They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada. Today we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. The fact is that carbon pricing is central to our climate plan, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and the cost of doing nothing is staggering. When we introduced carbon pricing in 2019, we were not only putting a price on pollution, but we were also putting in place the building blocks for the future we know we need for ourselves, for our kids and for our grandkids. Our approach has always been based on a set of ambitious but realistic standards for carbon pricing, the federal reference that gives the provinces and territories the flexibility to implement their own carbon pricing system. Setting the trajectory until 2030 provides certainty for Canadians and the investor community and will be transformative by creating incentives for the new technologies we need, for both our industry and society. We have just come to an agreement with all the provinces and territories on increasing carbon pricing. I will reiterate that we negotiated a more ambitious price on pollution with each province and all the territories for the coming years. I want to impress on the House just how foundational this price trajectory is to the success of Canadians' low-carbon economy and the jobs that will come with it. Last fall, at COP27 in Egypt, I spoke with Brian Vaasjo of Capital Power, one of Canada's largest private sector electricity producers. Brian told me that pricing pollution and providing certainty and long-term predictability in pricing are key to unlocking investment on some very good projects, including a $2-billion carbon capture electricity project that would not go ahead without it. Susannah Pierce, president and country chair at Shell Canada, noted that Shell's big investment will not make sense without carbon pricing in Canada, and that regulatory certainty is the key to good business decisions. The Conservatives have now abandoned the energy investors and energy companies, but they are pretending to be on the side of those facing energy poverty. Canadians have been riding the roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years, and Conservatives said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins from oil and gas producers. Instead, they make up a lot of misleading claims about the price on pollution. Here are the facts. About two-thirds of the increase in what Canadians are paying at the pump is due to crude oil prices going up, largely because of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. Another 25% of the price is the result of everything from provincial taxes to refining margins, which have increased by more than 110% in the last two years. That means, all told, 95% of the price of gas has nothing to do with the price on pollution. In fact, the price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of Canadians, and it remains one of the best ways to fight climate change and keep our air clean. Stakeholders across the country have told us that consistency and predictability are essential to promote investment in a low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce this pollution. They need incentives and clear support to commercialize and implement these technologies. Carbon pricing creates incentives without dictating a particular approach. It lets businesses decide on the best way to reduce their pollution. What is most galling are the lies of omission and the things left unsaid, like those quarterly climate action incentive payments that go directly to Canadian households in backstop provinces every three months. For the first time, households in three Atlantic provinces will receive quarterly climate action incentive payments totalling hundreds of dollars a year. The first rebate payment will come in July, which is the same month that the fuel charge will take effect for the first time. The vast majority of households will never be out of pocket, with lower- and middle-income families benefiting the most. Starting next July, a family of four in Nova Scotia will receive a climate action incentive payment of $248 every three months. In Prince Edward Island, it will be $240 per quarter. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be $328 every quarter. For an Ontario family of four, the quarterly payment will be $244 starting in April. In Manitoba, next year's quarterly payment will be $264 every quarter. In Saskatchewan, it will be $340. In Alberta, a family of four will receive $386 four times a year. In total, 90% of the proceeds from the fuel charges are returned directly to Canadian households through the climate action incentive payments. The rest will be returned to businesses, farmers and indigenous peoples through various federal and provincial programs. I want to say two things about affordability. First, I know how concerned Canadians are about household budgets in these inflationary times. I understand, and I share each and every concern that Canadians have. That is why we are making sure that rebate payments go directly to households every three months, and eight out of 10 get more than they paid. Equally important is the hard fact that if nothing is done about climate change, it will cost us far more. The parliamentary budget office recently estimated the cost to the Canadian economy of $25 billion per year by 2025 if we go about business as usual. The status quo is not an option. Some may argue that we can simply go back in time and pretend that climate change does not exist. They would probably have better luck buying cryptocurrency. Our goal is to keep life affordable while developing a clean economy, good jobs and safe communities. A stable, affordable and predictable price on pollution is a key component of that.

Madam Speaker, here we have another clear example of misinformation that is being spread in the House, and it is somewhat ironic that it is coming from this member. He supported his province in implementing the federal backstop system on carbon pricing, and he mentioned it would mean that people would get money in their pockets. I do not know who coerced him to make this intervention in the House this morning, because just a few months ago he was in favour of carbon pricing in his home province of New Brunswick.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her advocacy on this issue. However, I would like to remind her that we were not in government 10 years ago. The carbon pricing system that was proposed at the time was the Harper government's, not ours. That government was in favour of imposing a carbon tax one day, against it the next, and then in favour of it again the day after that. The Conservatives are still doing the same thing today. I would also like to remind my colleague that institutions such as the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund have said that our carbon pricing system is a leading model for fighting climate change. According to these institutions, if only two-thirds of the countries in the world adopted the Canadian carbon pricing system, then every country on the planet would have already met the Paris targets.

Madam Speaker, I can reassure my hon. colleague that I do not supposedly come from the environmental sector. I am from the environmental sector. I have the arrest record to prove it. We have put in place a number of measures to tackle the emissions of the oil and gas sector. In fact, our emissions reduction plan presented last March is the first time in the history of this country when we have set a trajectory for emissions reduction for the oil and gas sector. We are working on a number of different elements of regulations to tackle the emissions of the oil and gas sector. We eliminated international fossil fuel subsidies just before Christmas, and we are working with the party of the member opposite on eliminating those subsidies in Canada in the first half of this year. We will be doing this two years earlier than all of our G20 partners who have committed to eliminating those fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative politicians are making a lot of misleading claims about the price on pollution. The facts are that about 70% of gas price increase is due to crude oil prices going up, largely because of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, and another 25% of the price is the result of provincial taxes and refining margins that have gone up by 113% in the last two years. That means that 95% of the gas price has nothing to do with the price on pollution. The price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians and it remains one of the best ways to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, according to British Columbia's auditor general, on 2021 disaster costs, the atmospheric rivers in British Columbia cost the province $5 billion in damages. That is more than the 19 previous years combined. According to a study by MacEwan University, the total cost of the Fort McMurray forest fires is above $10 billion, with $4 billion of damage to homes and businesses and $1.7 billion in loss of production to oil sands. Climate change is real, no matter what the—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side, the Conservative Party, of a few facts. First of all, carbon pricing was implemented in 2019. It has not been eight years; it has only been three years since this pricing was put in place. Second, it does not apply in Quebec, because the Quebec government's cap-and-trade system applies in Quebec. My colleague from Quebec is completely wrong on this issue. Third, we give more money back to eight out of 10 Canadians than we take in through carbon pricing.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the question many Canadians are wrestling with is which Conservatives they should believe. Is it the Conservatives who, during the last election campaign, said they believed in climate change, and they believed in climate change so much they would put in place a price on pollution, or the Conservatives today who say they do not believe in either climate change or doing anything about it, let alone putting a price on pollution? That is the question many Canadians are struggling with.

Mr. Speaker, as many people know, including a number of Conservatives on the other side of the aisle, carbon pricing is one of the most effective ways to fight against climate change. Starting April 1, a family of four will get $386 in Alberta, $340 in Saskatchewan, $264 in Manitoba and $244 in Ontario, four times a year. We can fight climate change and support Canadians. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about families in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that are going to start to receive the climate action incentive rebate as of April 1. However, as of July 1, families in Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland will also be receiving the climate action incentive rebate four times a year so that we can together tackle climate change, which is costing billions of dollars to Canadians. That is going to go up to $25 billion by 2025. The Conservatives have nothing to say. They have no plan. They have nothing to say about climate change. On this side of the House, we will fight climate change, and we will do it by supporting Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the party opposite is worried about costs, but never talks about the costs we are passing on to our kids and grandkids through the impacts of climate change, which is billions of dollars accumulating year after year. We have an emergency here, and the party opposite is simply not telling the truth to Canadians. We are already paying for the cost of climate change, and we need to find solutions. They have no solutions to offer, none whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that every time the opposition talks about climate change, which happens very rarely, they never talk about the cost to Canadians, such as the billions of dollars from hurricane Fiona or the billions of dollars from atmospheric rivers in B.C. that are killing people in Canada. They never talk about these costs to Canadians. On this side of the House, we will fight climate change and we will work to support Canadians in this transition.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the important work that she is doing on the environment committee on its fossil fuel subsidy study. The implementation of this commitment was widely received across the country and by many environmental organizations, including Environmental Defence, and they applauded the announcement. By ending new, direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector, Canada will ensure its investments abroad are aligned with its domestic and international climate goals, which means more investment in clean energy and renewables.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question, his involvement and his advocacy on this important issue. In December, countries from around the world met in Montreal to address biodiversity loss. More than one million species are at risk globally, including 640 species here in Canada. Representatives from more than 160 countries set their differences aside, and we committed to protecting 30% of our land and oceans by 2030. It is a landmark agreement that Canadians should be proud of, since we were at the centre of this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, there are 263 environment and wildlife enforcement officers. In response to parts (b) and (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada does not collect information on how many times enforcement officers enter privately owned land to carry out their duties. They may, at any reasonable time, enter and inspect any place, vehicle or vessel in which officers believe, on reasonable grounds, that there is anything to which an act or regulations enforced by ECCC apply. In addition, the acts enforced by ECCC provide enforcement officers with protection from liability for trespass, recognizing that it may be necessary for an enforcement officer to enter on or cross over private property in order to reach an inspection site. However, with respect to entering a “private dwelling”, officers must obtain the consent of the owner or occupant, or prior authorization from a justice of the peace in the form of a warrant.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 would provide park wardens and enforcement officers with the law enforcement powers they need to protect historic places. The authorities would be similar to those under the Canada National Parks Act of 2000 and the Rouge National Urban Park Act of 2015. Park wardens may enter on and pass through or over private property only for specific and legitimate law enforcement purposes. To answer part (a) of the question, Bill C-23 provides that in the performance of their law enforcement duties, park wardens and enforcement officers may enter on and pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so. This authority would enable park wardens and enforcement officers to travel over private lands in order to access other locations solely for law enforcement purposes. In answer to part (b) of the question, Bill C-23 provides that park wardens and enforcement officers could enter on and pass through or over private property for law enforcement purposes anywhere in Canada. In response to part (c), Bill C-23 provides that park wardens and enforcement officers could enter on and pass through or over private property for law enforcement purposes only. The rights of citizens are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to prevent unreasonable search and seizure. If individuals were to believe that their private property had been entered unjustly by law enforcement officials, they would be entitled to report the incident to the Parks Canada Agency for investigation.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, Canadians believe that we need to do our fair share when it comes to fighting climate change. They believe climate change is real, and they believe we need to be doing something about it. For 10 years, Conservatives did not do anything about it, and now they are blaming us because of their inaction. That is a bit rich. We are playing catch-up, because for 10 years nothing was done when it comes fighting climate change in Canada. We now have one of the best plans in the world, and our emissions have started going down.

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 Canadians will get more from the climate incentive payment than what it costs them. That is a fact. Conservatives can debate it and they can go into their alternative views of the world, but eight out of 10 Canadians will get more. I am interested to know when they will have a plan to fight climate change. When will they help tackle this issue, which is costing Canadians billions of dollars year after year? That is my question for them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that Canada's work was applauded at COP27 by organizations such as Climate Action Network Canada, which said that we were among the first wealthy countries to move forward on the issue of loss and damages. The executive director of the International Energy Agency recognized Canada as a world leader in the fight against methane pollution. If I had to choose between the Bloc Québécois, which just wants to pick fights, and Climate Action Network Canada and the International Energy Agency, then I would choose the latter two.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Bloc Québécois should send my hon. colleague next time, since she could have heard me tell journalists from all over the world that we supported Great Britain's proposal to draft a text that effectively eliminates the use of non-sequestered fossil fuels by 2050. That is already Canada's plan, and we have already made that commitment and communicated it to our partners at COP27.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier during this question period, this will not take effect before July of next year. In the meantime, we are helping tens of thousands of Canadians get rid of their home heating oil, which is more expensive, more polluting and less efficient. The Conservatives would like to condemn those Canadians to continue being dependant on systems that will cost them more and more over time as opposed to systems that will save them thousands of dollars every year. That is the unfortunate truth.

Mr. Speaker, I would quote the words of the Canadian climate action network, which said that, on the issue of loss and damage, which was one of the victories of the COP27 conference, Canada was the “first mover among rich countries to make this thing happen.” We fought for this. We fought for stronger language in the text on eliminating the use of coal all around the world, including in Canada. We fought for stronger text on the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first false statement on climate change coming from the Conservatives in the House. Yesterday we heard them say that not one country had accepted the global carbon pricing challenge. Let me set the record straight. Chile, the European Commission, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and South Korea—I nearly forgot Germany and the United Kingdom, the world's fourth- and fifth-largest economies—are all countries that accepted our pollution pricing challenge.

Mr. Speaker, these are more alternative facts on climate change in the House today. Emissions have gone down in 2019 and in 2020. Let me talk about the rebate payments that we announced this morning. A family of four in Nova Scotia will get, four times a year, $248. In Prince Edward Island, a family of four will get $240, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, a family of four will get $328. They will get that four times a year. We are there to have Canadians' backs and fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is developing clean electricity regulations, or CER, to help drive progress towards a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. The proposed regulations have yet to be finalized. They are being designed to ensure the decarbonization of Canada’s already low-carbon grid while ensuring continued energy reliability and affordability. The decarbonization of our electricity grid is an essential prerequisite to achieving a net-zero economy by 2050, as it will enable the electrification of many activities currently supported by emitting sources of energy. This critical energy transition is being supported by the investments that the government is making in clean electricity infrastructure and technology development. As with all regulatory initiatives, the Government of Canada is undertaking detailed analysis to understand the costs and benefits of the CER for Canadians. These estimates will be included in the regulatory impact analysis statement, or RIAS, which will accompany the publication of the draft regulations in Canada Gazette, part I, or CGI. Work is progressing on the draft regulations and the accompanying RIAS for CGI publication. A public comment period will follow the publication enabling the government to account for further input on the RIAS and the regulations before finalizing them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an article that the new director of communications for the Conservative Party of Canada wrote. He stated, “But opposition to a policy is not a policy in and of itself.” He added, “Conservatives are refusing to contribute anything to the [climate change] discussion other than throwing temper tantrums and scoring political points.” I agree with the new director of communications for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question, although I find it somewhat perplexing. Radio-Canada recently published an article under the headline “Woodland caribou: [the Bloc leader] draws the ire of biologists”. It said that the Bloc leader had expressed doubts about the science behind the decline of the caribou. On this side of the House, we believe in the science of climate change. We believe in environmental science. That is why we are proposing serious measures to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the Bloc Québécois was the Quebec environment minister, he bypassed the environmental assessment for the McInnis Cement project in the Gaspé. He also bypassed the environmental assessment and the public consultations on Enbridge's Line 9B reversal and the environmental assessment, his own law, on drilling in Anticosti. I do not think the Bloc Québécois has any lessons to give anyone in the House on environmental assessments.

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich to hear the member opposite talk about foreign oil imports. There were twice as many foreign oil imports under their leadership than there are today. When they say they have the back of energy workers, the question is which energy workers. Is it Saudi Arabian energy workers, Russian energy workers or Canadian energy workers? Under our leadership, oil imports have gone down by 50%, and investment in renewable energy and clean technologies have doubled since 2015. I do not think we have any lessons to receive from the member opposite on energy.