Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. member for her dedication to the issue of climate change over many decades. As the IPCC has said, countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 43% by 2030. We are on track to meeting at least a 40% reduction and on our way to meeting a 45% reduction. We are doing more right now than any other country in the G7 to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Our investments, on a per-capita basis, are three times what the Americans just announced with the IRA in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would also like to add my voice to those of other members who are thinking of the people and families who lost loved ones in hurricane Fiona, one of the worst storms to ever hit eastern Canada. The barometric pressure was the lowest ever recorded on the east coast of the country. I would like to take a moment to commend the work of the Meteorological Service of Canada in helping emergency services, local populations, and local and federal governments prepare for this storm.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would remind her that we have a plan providing for investments of $109 billion to combat climate change, which is three times more per capita than the United States is spending. In addition, we fought for the carbon tax all the way to the Supreme Court. We are implementing programs to help phase out oil-based heating, which is three times more expensive and produces a great deal of pollution. We are working to eliminate cars and the use of internal combustion engines in Canada by 2035, as California and Europe are doing. Our government is one of the most ambitious governments when it comes to climate action.

Mr. Speaker, it takes some nerve for my colleague opposite to ask that question, when the leader of her own party approved the Anticosti drilling plan without any environmental assessment. I do not think my hon. colleague is in a position to lecture us. I remind the member that our climate action plan was still supported by my former colleagues at Greenpeace and Equiterre and by many organizations across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite difficult to listen to the member opposite speak about this, as many of his members, including the leader of his party, have risen in the House to talk about the impacts of Fiona. We know that it is linked to climate change, and we know that we have to do more to fight climate change. We know that, because of climate change, there are more hurricanes on our east and west coasts, which are more and more severe. Therefore, I am having a really hard time to find an answer to this question.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. I am so happy to see these demonstrations all across the country. I actually organized many such events when I was a little younger. I would like to remind my colleague that, since we came to power, fossil fuel subsidies have decreased by over $4 billion a year. We are committed to eliminating those subsidies by next year, 2023, which is two years earlier than our G20 partners. We are taking action on climate change. We are taking action on affordability.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that our climate action plan provides for a $109‑billion investment in clean energy, in the electrification of transportation and in green electricity generation. That is three times more per capita than what the United States is investing. There are other measures on top of that. We will reduce emissions of methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas, by 40% to 50%, not by 2030 or 2035, but within the next three years, at no cost to businesses. Our plan to control pollution is a plan that works and that will help Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, our plan is designed so that the majority of households in Canada receive more from the climate action incentive payments than they pay, at a time when Canadians need more money and we need to fight climate change. The Leader of the Opposition talked about a crisis earlier. We are giving families in Ontario $745. It is $830 in Manitoba, $1,100 in Saskatchewan and almost $1,100 in Alberta. The Conservative Party wants to take this money away from Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing is widely recognized by nearly everyone including those in this House, except for the Conservative Party, as the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions while driving clean innovation and creating jobs. Do not take it from me. Do not take it from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Greens. Take it from some members of the Conservative Party who have asked that our system be applied in their province because it gives more money back into people's pockets and fights climate change at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, just two weeks ago I announced a program, a $250-million program, to help tens of thousands of Canadians get off home heating oil and get access to cheaper, cleaner electricity to heat their homes and use in their houses. This is yet another example of how we can tackle the crisis of climate change and help Canadians with affordability. Unfortunately, on these two fronts, the Conservatives have nothing to offer Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about carbon pricing for a second. In 2007, the Harper government proposed a $15 carbon tax. In 2008, the same government pledged to introduce a cap-and-trade system. In 2011, it was no longer pursuing any of these systems, yet last year the opposition proposed in their election campaign that they supporting carbon pricing again. Canadians want real, serious climate actions to ensure a healthier environment and a cleaner economy, not Conservative flip-flops.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sudbury for her question. In my younger days, I would have been on the front lines of today's climate protests, carrying a banner or a megaphone. I actually organized many such protests myself. I can assure the House today that my department and this government are fully committed to taking action on all fronts in the fight against climate change. This includes $109 billion in investments and over 100 initiatives in electrification, climate change adaptation and conservation led by indigenous peoples across the country. Yes, pollution is decreasing in Canada, contrary to what the Conservative Party would have us believe. We are taking action on climate change, and we will continue to do so for the good of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, with climate change, the cost of inaction is enormous. In fact, it is in the billions of dollars, and we have a practical and affordable way to lower pollution. Let us look at the facts. The revenue from pricing pollution in Canada will go back to the provinces where the money was raised, with 90% for families directly and 10% for businesses, municipalities, schools, hospitals and indigenous communities to help them become more energy efficient and save money. Under our plan, eight out of 10 families will have more money in their pockets, and all the revenue from pricing pollution will stay in the province where it came from.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some confusion about the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, and the details are important. The PBO report broadly consists of two main parts. The first part looks at direct costs like increased fuel prices, and the revenue that is returned to households. This first part is straightforward and underscores how carbon pricing works. By gradually increasing the cost of fossil fuels and returning proceeds to Canadians, carbon pricing delivers an incentive to choose greener options while keeping the policy affordable. Importantly, the PBO’s report confirms that, under the federal carbon pricing system, the average household receives more in climate action incentive, or CAI, payments than they face in direct costs due to carbon pricing. Most households come out ahead, and low-income households, in particular, do much better. This is because CAI payments are based on the average amount paid in the province, and high-income households tend to use more energy for larger and more vehicles and larger houses, but everyone gets the same amount of money back. The second part of the PBO report is where the confusion arises. The report claims that, in addition to paying the carbon price, each household also “pays” in the form of slower gross domestic product, or GDP, growth. The problem with this conclusion is that the PBO report compares GDP growth in a scenario with carbon pricing to GDP growth in a scenario in which there is no action of any kind to address climate change. This approach highlights the costs of one policy without considering real alternatives. This is not a valid comparison. Inaction on climate change is not an option. It would lead to massive costs in the future. An appropriate comparison would include a scenario with carbon pricing and a scenario in which climate change is addressed by measures other than carbon pricing. Compared to alternatives, such as more regulations or bigger spending, experts agree that carbon pricing is the least expensive of all the policies to address climate change. In that comparison, the carbon pricing scenario comes out ahead. The PBO report also acknowledges that its assessment of the impacts of carbon pricing does not account for the benefits of carbon pricing. Further, the study does not quantify the avoided climate damages associated with the greenhouse gas emissions reduced by carbon pricing. Without accounting for these, and other complementary policies and investments, including the numerous expected economic benefits of pricing, the report’s GDP projections likely overestimate the impact of carbon pricing on GDP growth. Finally, by presenting the difference between scenarios as a cost, a scenario where we put a price on pollution and one where we do nothing, the analysis contributes to a misconception that carbon pricing causes GDP to decline, when in fact, according to the PBO’s analysis, GDP and incomes rise in both scenarios, only at different rates. Carbon pricing drives innovation and new technologies, and this creates jobs and economic growth. When you compare carbon pricing with other options, study after study confirms the benefits of carbon pricing. Although the Government of Canada does not currently have any policies that specifically mention misinformation or disinformation, the policy on communications and federal identity requires all government communications to be “objective, factual, non-partisan, clear, and written in plain language.”

Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a significant amount of time and effort, which is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information. The information requested in part (a) related to fire plans and controlled burns is specific to individual national parks and is therefore located in various business units across the agency. All national parks with fire-prone vegetation are required to have a fire management plan in place as per the Parks Canada agency wildland fire management directive. These plans provide strategic direction on fire management activities and provide planning and operational priorities for implementing the park/site fire management program. These plans include the following core fire program elements: prevention, risk reduction, preparedness, wildfire management and response, and prescribed fire implementation. Parks/sites that implement controlled burns, prescribed fires, are required to develop specific prescribed fire plans for each prescribed fire project. In any given year, there are several of those plans ready for implementation across the agency. The information pertaining to agreements and contracts for fire plans requested in parts (b) and (c) is not publicly available nor easily accessible. Overall, this request for all the plans, agreements and contracts would yield thousands of pages. Parks Canada has many wildfire mutual aid resource-sharing agreements in place at local, provincial and territorial levels, such as bilateral border zone agreements with most provinces and territories; nationally, such as the Canadian Interagency Mutual Aid Resources Sharing Agreement; and internationally, with the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and South Africa. Parks Canada uses contracts, supply arrangements, and standing offers for additional wildfire resources such as contract fire crews; structure protection specialists; aircraft; wildfire equipment, such as pumps and hoses; camps; catering services; and aircraft fuel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work and activism on this issue. I am proud to announce to the House that, at the request of the United Nations, Canada has agreed to host the next United Nations conference on the protection of biological diversity in December. This important conference must be the moment when countries all over the world, including Canada, commit to protecting at least 30% of our land and oceans by 2030, and to reversing biodiversity loss by 2050.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport for her advocacy and her work on these important issues. Selena is right. We need to do better when it comes to protecting our environment, which is why this week we announced that we are banning six single-use plastics that are polluting our rivers and our environment. They are ending up on our streets and everywhere. Between now and 2030, there will be 22,000 tonnes of plastic waste that we will take out of our environment and 1.3 million tonnes that we will take out of the Canadian economy.

Madam Speaker, in his question, my colleague talked about carbon pricing. I would like to begin by reminding him that federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system. Second, in provinces where carbon pricing is in effect, people get more back from the system than they put into it. In Ontario, families will get $745 this year. In Manitoba, they will get $830. In Saskatchewan, they will get $1,100, and in Alberta, they will get $1,080. Canadians are better off with the pollution pricing system.

Mr. Speaker, let me give a quick lesson on the greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Canada uses the same methodology as every country in the world, which is the one used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. Simply put, emissions are calculated at the point of combustion. If the oil is burned here, it goes into our emissions balance, and if the oil is burned in the United States or Europe, it goes into their balance. That is how it works for everyone on the planet, including Canada.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is not a claim, but rather a condition for the project to go ahead. This is the first time in this country's history that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has imposed a net-zero condition on a project. Second, I would invite my colleague to read the International Energy Agency report, which states that in 2050, we will still be using fossil fuel products, not as fuels, but instead as solvents or to build roads, for example. We will no longer be burning that fuel in 2050, but we will be using it for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I completely disagree with her characterization. Our reduction plan is ambitious, but achievable. It shows, sector by sector, how Canada will meet its targets. It is the most transparent plan in the history of the country. We are not the ones saying so. It is a whole host of non-governmental organizations and experts. The analysis that The Globe and Mail obtained was one of many initial internal contributions, but that analysis does not take into account all of the new measures that have been announced, including investments and regulations. Environment Canada organized many technical information sessions with external experts, and we have been completely transparent on how we got our figures.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to read the entire Globe and Mail article, and not just the headline, because two experts are quoted who believe that what the oil industry is being asked to do is indeed ambitious. What Canada hopes to do is ambitious. I would have expected the Bloc Québécois to support an ambitious approach in the fight against climate change. This plan focuses on the lives of over 30,000 Canadians. It has been applauded by organizations such as the Pembina Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defence, Équiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation. Our government will ensure that this plan is implemented so that Canada can meet its targets.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my hon. colleague to read the latest report from Canada’s official greenhouse gas inventory, which showed that, although oil production in Canada increased by 700,000 barrels in 2019 compared to 2018, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced in 2019 and in 2020. This all shows that our plan is working. We have decided to tackle pollution. We will reduce our methane emissions by nearly 45% in the oil and gas sector by 2025. Our objective is to increase that figure to 75% by 2030, which is the most ambitious objective in the world.

Mr. Speaker, what strikes me is that the member does not seem to have read the 2030 emissions reduction plan, because it is a plan to reduce our emissions by 40% to 45%. There is a plan for net zero by 2050, and that plan is coming. If he had read the 2030 plan, the member opposite would see that we have, for the first time in the history of this country, shown how we get to our 2030 targets per sector. That has been validated by a number of experts, including the ex-leader of the B.C. Green Party, IPCC scientists and a number of other experts across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on what my finance colleague said. On the issue of carbon pricing, in 2007, the Harper government proposed a $15 tax. In 2008, it proposed a cap-and-trade system, only to change its mind in 2011. In the end, it decided not to do anything about climate change. Surprise, surprise, during the last election campaign, the Conservative Party went back to supporting carbon pricing. Now, as of a few weeks ago, it no longer supports it. What Canadians want is action on climate change, not a party that changes its mind all the time.

Mr. Speaker, our plan is designed so that the majority of households in Canada receive more money from the climate incentive payment than they pay. This has been confirmed through the analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As carbon prices increase, these payments also increase. For example, this year a family of four will receive up to $745 in Ontario, $830 in Manitoba, $1,100 in the member's province of Saskatchewan and more than $1,000 in Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City for the important work he did on advancing this very important issue. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada plays a central role in our country's official historic designations. Ensuring representation for indigenous peoples on the board is an important step in responding to call to action 79. Today, I introduced Bill C-23. The strong legislative framework, the first of its kind in Canada, would help ensure that Canada's treasured historic places are protected. The proposed legislation not only strengthens indigenous voices at the table, but also provides flexibility to adapt and reuse historic places as sustainable ways of addressing the climate change crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and for her advocacy on this important issue. The Bay du Nord project was subject to an independent environmental assessment by experts over the course of more than four years, and these experts gave it a favourable recommendation. There are 137 conditions on this project. For the first time in history, a project will have to be net-zero by 2050. The project will also be required to come under the greenhouse gas emissions target that we will set. The project will have to be net-zero by 2050, regardless of whether it produces 300 million or 500 million barrels of oil.

Mr. Speaker, how could approve that? The same day we gave the green light to the Bay du Nord project, we rejected an oil sands project that would have emitted 10 times more greenhouse gases per barrel. We have put a cap on methane emissions. We will reduce methane emissions by 40% to 45% by 2025, and by 75% by 2030. No other country in the world has brought in such significant measures. We took the fight for carbon pricing all the way to the Supreme Court, and that was against several provinces, including Quebec, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the inventories in 2019, well before the pandemic, show that oil production in Canada increased by 700,000 barrels that year, the equivalent of one and a half times the Bay du Nord project. However, greenhouse gas emissions dropped in 2019 compared to 2018. Why? Because our plan tackles pollution, independently of what happens with oil production. It is working. The electricity sector is taking great strides to reduce its reliance on coal, as are several other sectors. That is how we are going to meet our 2030 and 2050 goals.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. As she is well aware, just over a month ago we presented our plan to fight climate change. It clearly shows how Canada will meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. Our plan will work regardless of whether oil production goes up, down or remains constant. Our emissions in 2019, before the pandemic, show that greenhouse gas emissions dropped, despite the increase in Canada's oil production.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that the issue of climate bombs is not new. When I was at Greenpeace in the 1990s, we actually published a report on this. This is not a new issue, for one thing. The other thing is that we made a commitment to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector, and we are working on that. This is one of the things that will allow Canada to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets by 2030. They include cutting emissions by 40% to 45%, whereas the IPCC is calling on countries to cut them by at least 43%. We are doing exactly what the science is telling us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. As she is probably well aware, the independent international NGO Energy Policy Tracker has shown, quite independently, that the Canadian government is investing more in clean technology and renewable energy than in fossil fuels. Our recovery plan is the greenest of all G7 countries and the second greenest of all G20 countries. That said, we have committed to eliminating all fossil fuel subsidies by 2023, two years earlier than all our G20 partners. That is exactly what we are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I have two pieces of good news for him. We are investing record amounts in the energy transition, more than has ever been spent in the history of Canada, more than every G7 and G20 country. We are investing more in the green transition as part of our economic recovery plan than any other G20 country. We committed to eliminating the fossil fuel subsidy by 2023, two years sooner than all our G20 partners.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question and her work on the environment in her riding. When the roof over our heads is leaking, we repair it and then we can think about what to have for dinner. We can and we must mitigate the impacts of climate change and, at the same time, prepare for it. These consultations will lead to the first inclusive national adaptation strategy, which will ensure that we are prepared to face the climate of today and tomorrow, and to implement measures to ensure the safety and well-being of our families, our communities and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague might know, today we launched the consultations on the first-ever national adaptation strategy. It will clearly focus on the most-impacted Canadians, which include, obviously, indigenous communities across the country and certainly racialized communities and the poorest among us. We are at the very beginning of the consultation, but I can assure the member and this chamber that the consideration of indigenous people and the people of the north, Inuit, will be taken into great consideration as we elaborate this national strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for London West for her hard work. I would also like to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for his ongoing support for this file. I am happy to announce that Parks Canada and Transport Canada are signing a memorandum of understanding to pursue a transfer of the Ojibway shore-lands from the Windsor Port Authority to Parks Canada so they can be included in the future national urban park. This is a significant step forward in establishing the park. We will continue to work closely with partners to establish Windsor's first national urban park.

Mr. Speaker, a friend recently told me that when there is a fire, we need more firefighters, not fewer. We need more environmentalists in the House, and definitely within government, to advance environmental issues. I am very pleased to be here with my colleagues because, over the past five months, we have presented a plan that will allow Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. No matter what happens with oil and gas production, pollution will go down.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change denounces the use or threat of violence to achieve personal or societal goals. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants everyone the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. The Government of Canada supports the peaceful and lawful expression of these rights. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is the lead for overall counter-terrorism planning, preparedness and response within the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the findings of the commissioner's report. We believe, like him, that Canada should always do better when it comes to fighting climate change. Specifically on infrastructure, we are doing things that have never been seen before in Canada, such as using infrastructure dollars to invest in nature-based solutions. All across the country, this is one of the best ways not only to fight climate change but to mitigate the impacts of climate change and adapt to those impacts.

Madam Speaker, in fact, we have expanded, in the last budget, the purchase incentive for electric vehicles. We have doubled the number of charging stations we will be installing across Canada to 50,000 and we are investing with companies to transform Canada's auto sector from gasoline to electric vehicles. We will be coming up with more measures to help people adopt electric vehicles in the future.