Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. The long answer is the commissioner says that carbon pricing is one of the most important measures to fight greenhouse gas emissions. That is exactly what we are doing. The commissioner says that eight out of 10 Canadians are getting more money through carbon pricing than without it. The commissioner said that the federal government would reach its 25% emissions-reduction target this year, not in 2025. Our plan is working, but I will agree that there is way more we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I also thank the Commissioner of the Environment for his work. I have been following the work of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for more than two decades. This work is certainly very important to our government and should be important to all governments since it helps us to do better. We want our climate change plan to be one of the best in the world and we want our strategy, including our hydrogen strategy, to be one of the best in the world. We will work on doing exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we take climate change adaptation very seriously, which is why last year we started working with expert panels to design Canada's first national adaptation strategy, which is expected to be adopted this year. We are working with the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, municipalities and other stakeholders to develop Canada's first national adaptation strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. colleague take a look at the latest official greenhouse gas emissions inventory report, which shows that in 2019, before the pandemic, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions went down, even though oil production increased by 700,000 barrels. It does not end there. There were 100 measures, $110 billion in investments and a huge number of regulatory measures to make Canada a leader on climate change.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we welcome the commissioner's latest report and thank him for his findings. I do not know what is so controversial about that. Over the last six years, we have made major progress on everything from putting a price on pollution to protecting historic amounts of our lands and water. As we have planned in budget 2022 and the emissions reduction plan, we are transitioning to a clean economy. We are putting a cap on emissions from Canada's oil and gas sector, and we are putting a price on pollution through to 2030.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury. Protecting and conserving nature is one of the most important measures we can take to slow biodiversity loss while fighting climate change and advancing the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples. Nature is what ties all these important causes together. This project will protect 15,000 square kilometres of critical habitat for species at risk such as caribou. Last week on Earth Day, we celebrated the Boreal Wildlands as the largest single private conservation project in Canada's history. This is another important step as our government works toward conserving 25% of our land by 2025.

Madam Speaker, my thanks to my hon. colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands for retabling this bill. She is right: The government supports this bill. I also want to thank her for her many years and decades of activism on environmental racism because it is a thing, despite what some people, unfortunately even in the House, think. My question to the member is this. She touched on it, but can she elaborate a little bit on the science supporting the very fact and the very existence of environmental racism?

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), pricing carbon pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions while driving innovation to provide consumers and businesses with low-carbon options. Canada’s approach to pricing carbon pollution provides flexibility for provinces and territories to implement a carbon pricing system that makes sense for their circumstances, provided that the system meets minimum stringency criteria to ensure that it is stringent, fair and efficient as defined in the federal benchmark. The federal carbon pollution pricing system, the backstop, has two elements: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels and an output-based pricing system, OBPS, for industrial facilities. The federal OBPS is designed to minimize competitiveness and carbon leakage risks in emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries. The federal backstop applies in jurisdictions that request it or that do not have a carbon pricing system that aligns with the federal benchmark. The fuel charge currently applies in Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nunavut. The OBPS currently applies in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Nunavut, and partially in Saskatchewan. Under the federal approach, the OBPS is designed to put a price on the carbon pollution of large industrial facilities, while limiting the impacts of carbon pricing on their ability to compete in the Canadian market and abroad. Carbon costs can affect businesses that conduct activities that are emissions-intensive and highly internationally traded if they compete with similar businesses in countries that do not have carbon pricing in place. This approach minimizes the risk that businesses will move from Canada to jurisdictions that do not price carbon. Instead of paying the fuel charge, an industrial facility in the OBPS faces a compliance obligation on the portion of emissions that exceed an annual limit. Covered facilities are required to provide compensation for GHG emissions that exceed an emissions limit and are issued surplus credits if their emissions are lower than the applicable emissions limit. Facilities can sell surplus credits or bank them for use in future years. The methods for providing compensation are one of the following or a combination of both: a) making an excess emissions charge payment electronically to the receiver general for Canada; and b) remitting compliance units, namely surplus credits, federal offset credits, or recognized units. As of February 22, 2022, the Government of Canada had collected $396.2 million in excess emissions charge payments under the OBPS. In response to (b), the Government of Canada has committed to return proceeds collected from the OBPS to jurisdictions of origin. Jurisdictions that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS, currently Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut, can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in other backstop jurisdictions, current or past, including Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, will be returned through the two program streams of the OBPS proceeds fund. The decarbonization incentive program, DIP, is a merit-based program that incentivizes the long-term decarbonization of Canada’s industrial sectors by supporting clean technology projects to reduce GHG emissions. Proceeds collected from most OBPS facilities will be returned via DIP to backstop jurisdictions. The future electricity fund, FEF, stream is designed to support clean electricity projects and/or programs. Proceeds collected from OBPS-covered electricity-generating facilities, i.e., utilities, are expected to be returned through funding agreements with governments of backstop jurisdictions. An open call for project proposals is not anticipated under FEF. Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, launched the OBPS proceeds fund on February 14, 2022, to return proceeds collected for the 2019 compliance period, approximately $161 million, and those collected in future years, amounts to be confirmed. The DIP stream of the OBPS proceeds fund is currently accepting project proposals that would reduce emissions across Canada’s industrial sectors. ECCC has also engaged with the governments of backstop jurisdictions to initiate negotiations of the bilateral funding agreements under FEF. Given the recent launch of the OBPS proceeds fund, ECCC has not yet returned any proceeds collected from the OBPS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Just last week, we made a joint announcement with the Nature Conservancy of Canada about the largest private land conservation project in this country's history, which will protect an area twice the size of the island of Montreal. We are working with our international partners to make our goal of protecting 30% of our lands and oceans by 2030 an international goal in addition to working on reducing and reversing biodiversity loss. We will keep working on this with all interested members, parties and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question. I would like to remind him that in its report this week, the IPCC refers to carbon capture and storage as a key technology for achieving our net-zero target by 2050. That is exactly what we are doing in Canada. Our latest budget encourages the development of this technology and all technologies that will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I invite her to reread the budget, because more than $9.1 billion will be invested in the fight against climate change, $1.7 billion will continue to help Canadians switch to electric vehicles, and hundreds of millions of dollars will help Canadians and Quebeckers lower their home energy bills through the energy efficient retrofit program. In its most recent report, released this week, the IPCC states that carbon capture and storage technology is critical to achieving our 2050 objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that the IPCC report says that greenhouse gas emissions have to be capped over the next three years and decline thereafter. That is already the case in Canada. The IPCC says we have to reduce our emissions by at least 43% by 2030. Our goal is to reduce them by 40% to 45%. Honestly, my colleague is one to talk, given that her leader, the former environment minister of Quebec, allowed drilling on Anticosti Island without an environmental assessment. I am not sure the Bloc Québécois is in a position to lecture anyone in the House on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her question and her advocacy for the electrification of transportation. In order to support the energy transition and position Canada as an economic powerhouse in the future, we are not only investing in making electric vehicles more affordable, we are also ensuring that Canada is a global leader across the supply chain, from extracting the essential minerals needed to manufacture vehicles and batteries, to ensuring that charging stations are available across the country and are powered by clean energy. Our government is here for Canadians. We are making smart investments to position Canada in the low-carbon economy of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the conversation yesterday was about our investments working, so maybe I can quote some investments that have been made in his province of Ontario: $6 billion with GM in Oshawa for an electric vehicle plant and $5 billion between LG and Stellantis in Windsor to make the transition to electric vehicles. These are only some of the investments we have made. In fact, our emissions are going down by 30 million tonnes already, and that is just the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for La Prairie. I find it quite ironic that the Bloc Québécois is asking to cancel projects supported by the provinces, when its position is always to tell the federal government to mind its own business. In this particular case, the provincial sovereignty issue is on a bit of a sliding scale. I would answer my colleague's question with another question. Would the Bloc Québécois be in favour of the federal government conducting an independent assessment of the third link in Quebec City?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the Bay du Nord project underwent a four-year, independent environmental assessment, not to mention consultations with scientists, experts and 42 indigenous communities. I would also like to remind him that his leader allowed drilling on Anticosti Island without any environmental assessment whatsoever. We, on our side, have been assessing this project for four years, and I have received a green light from the federal environmental assessment agency.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie that the IPCC stated that to limit global warming to 1.5°C, countries must reduce their emissions by 43% by 2030. Canada's objective is to reduce emissions by 40% to 45%. The IPCC said that all sectors must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The plan we introduced in the House last week clearly shows how all sectors in Canada are in the process of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC also noted that, despite everything we are going to do, we will continue to consume oil, with 35 million barrels in 2050. That oil must emit as few emissions as possible and they must be sequestered.

Mr. Speaker, what the IPCC said in its report this week is that in order to prevent global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5°C, countries have to reduce, between now and 2030, their greenhouse gas emissions by 43%. We are on track to reducing them by 40% to 45%. The IPCC said that every sector of our economy needs to be reducing its emissions. I tabled last week in the House a report that shows how exactly we are going to do that between now and 2030. The IPCC also recognized that we will still be using fossil fuels even in 2050, and we need to make sure that these are as low-emitting as possible and we need to capture all of the emissions.

These vehicles and many others we need will continue to use oil. That is why we chose a project for the planet that emits 10 times less greenhouse gas emissions than the oil sands and five times less than the average project. This project will have to achieve net-zero emissions. This is the first time in Canadian history that we have imposed such a condition on an oil development project. We will continue to work to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that he was not talking about Canada. We have a price on pollution that is among the most ambitious in the world. We have regulations on methane emissions, and we will cut those emissions almost in half by 2025 and by 75% by 2030. That is one of the most ambitious targets on the planet. We are investing in electrification and public transit, to decarbonize the aluminum sector in Lac‑Saint‑Jean and the steel and auto sector in Ontario and other parts of Canada. Our plan is working. Emissions are already starting to go down and we will keep working at it.

Mr. Speaker, when we reformed environmental impact assessments under Bill C-69, we made a commitment that we were going to depoliticize the process of environmental projects in Canada. Our government has accepted the environmental impact assessment done by the agency, which conducted a rigorous, robust and transparent process that lasted almost four years. This project will include requirements for net-zero emissions by 2050 and 137 other environmental protection measures. The project aligns with the government's ambitious emissions reduction plan and will need to fit under the emission cap for the oil and gas sector.

Mr. Speaker, the IPCC did not say what he just said. The secretary general of the United Nations said that. There is a big difference. The IPCC said every country needs to reduce its emissions by 43% by 2030. That is exactly what we are doing. The IPCC said any fossil fuel that we will still be using needs to be abated. That is exactly what we are doing by putting in place mandatory measures for net zero by 2050. We will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her advocacy. Our government recognizes the importance of the decision on Equinor's Bay du Nord development project. We are following a legislated process based on the available scientific evidence. That is why we extended the legislated timeline in order to take the time to properly review the considerable amount of complex information and make an informed decision.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would like to quote what some people had to say when we presented our plan last week. Équiterre's Marc‑André Viau stated, “We welcome the emissions reduction plan because this is the first time that we have such a detailed strategy to reach a target”. I would like to remind my colleague that our plan is based on, among other things, data from the Canada Energy Regulator, which has forecast an increase in oil production in Canada. Despite everything, our plan sets out, in black and white, how we are going to tackle pollution and achieve our emissions reduction targets by 2030.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right that there are some people, like the Conservatives, who talk about climate change. Others, like those on this side of the House, are taking action by putting a price on pollution, which is already one of the highest in the world. We are on our way to cutting methane emissions by 40% to 45% by 2025. We have an objective of 75%, which is the most ambitious objective in the world. It is clear that Canada's federal government can tackle pollution. My colleague knows very well that production is a provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for the question. Our plan allocates $9.2 billion in additional investments. The plan also includes an ambitious and achievable sector-by-sector approach for Canada to reach its climate target by 2030. The plan has been in development for months and reflects submissions from more than 30,000 Canadians. I want everyone to know that we have received a lot of support for this plan from various sectors across the country. The mayor of Quebec City, the mayor of Montreal, and a number of environmental groups and businesses have commended this plan. Our government is there to respond ambitiously to the climate crisis, to stimulate a clean economy, and to create sustainable jobs. We are there for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question. As he is well aware, we committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies, including those for Crown corporations, by 2023, which is two years earlier than all of our G20 partners. Last week, we announced $9.1 billion in new money on top of the $100 billion our government is already investing across Canada to make this country a global energy transition leader.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that our plan, which is based on projections from the Canada Energy Regulator, provides for increased production in Canada, but we are addressing greenhouse gas emissions. Sabaa Khan, director general for Quebec and Atlantic Canada at the David Suzuki Foundation, said, “This plan has a better chance of success than any of Canada's previous climate plans”. Marc-André Viau from Équiterre said, “We welcome the emissions reduction plan because this is the first time that we have such a detailed strategy”. Diego Creimer from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Quebec chapter, said, “It was double or nothing, and the minister went for it. Ottawa has just invested heavily in our best ally: nature.”

Mr. Speaker, to fight climate change, we need all available technologies, and that is exactly what our approach has been so far. In budget 2021, we committed to put in place a tax incentive for carbon capture and storage, which is in fact featured in today's IPCC report as a technology we absolutely need to tackle climate change. We should not put all our eggs in that basket. It is part of our plan. Five per cent of our plan rests on carbon capture and storage, but we need to invest in transit. We need to invest in solar, in wind and in electrification. By doing all these things, we will get to our target.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of giving Canadians a break, let us talk about provinces where carbon pricing is being applied by the federal government. In Ontario, households will receive $745. In Manitoba, they will receive $830. In Saskatchewan it will be $1,100, and it will be almost as much in Alberta. Carbon pricing is working for Canadians to reduce emissions. The Conservatives have no plan whatsoever to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, how many members from the Conservative Party stood in this House after the flooding in B.C. and the heat domes that killed so many Canadians and said, “We have to act on climate change”? This is exactly what we are doing. In fact, the revenue from pricing pollution will go back to the provinces where the money was raised, 90% to families directly and 10% to businesses, municipalities, schools, hospitals and indigenous communities. Under our plan, eight out of 10 families will have more money in their pockets, no matter what the Conservatives say about it.

Mr. Speaker, our plan is designed so that the majority of households receive more in climate action incentive payments than they pay. This has been confirmed by the independent analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As our carbon tax increases, these payments also increase, leaving the majority of Canadians with more money in their pockets. In Ontario, households will receive $600 this year, $720 in Manitoba, $1,000 in Saskatchewan and $980 in Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that a carbon price is one of the most effective measures to reduce emissions, and if the Conservatives will not believe the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if they will not believe the IMF, maybe they will believe the member for New Brunswick Southwest, who said that his province should go back to using the federal carbon pricing system because at least it comes with a rebate.