Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Today is a very good day for Canadians, as we are announcing a tax holiday on food, restaurant meals and children's clothing to help families and workers. It is quite something to hear that the leader of the Conservative Party is forcing his members to vote against this measure, when just two years ago, he himself supported it. It is the height of hypocrisy. Do members know what we say about someone like that back home in La Tuque? We say they are all talk and no action.

Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing in Canada is generating 25 billion dollars' worth of investment every year in our economy. It is putting more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians and helping us reduce our emissions for the first time in our history. If it were up to the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, they would let the planet burn. They would bring the economy down. They would let Canadians down. We do not do that on this side of the House. We are there for Canadians. We will fight climate change. We will support the economy. We will create good jobs for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada, when it comes to many things, including climate change, is extremely reckless. This is the party that has let the people of Jasper down. For four consecutive years, it invested nothing to protect Jasper from forest fires. From 2011 to 2015, there were zero hectares of fire removal and zero hectares of mechanical removals to prevent forest fires. The Conservative Party let Jasper down. Now it wants to let Canadians down in the face of climate change, but we will not do that on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making life more affordable for Canadians. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, I would like to table, in both official languages, the draft legislative proposals to implement tax relief for all Canadians and a rebate for Canadian workers that will put more money in the pockets of Canadian families so they can focus on the things that matter to them.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that every time the Conservatives talk about climate change, they never talk about the cost to Canadians of climate impacts. We have seen record levels, just for this year, in the months of July and August, of $7 billion in climate costs to Canadians, which makes it the costliest year ever on record. What is their solution? Let the planet burn. The Conservative Leader of the Opposition has voted 400 times against clean air, clean water and a clean environment for Canadian communities. On this side of the House, we will be here to support Canadians and to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating that it seems the Conservative Party is listening to economists. Let us listen to what economists are saying. More than 300 of them have said that the best way to fight climate change is to put a price on pollution. Interestingly enough, one of those 300 economists is the economist the member just quoted, Trevor Tombe, who has said on multiple occasions that the best way to fight climate change is to put a price on pollution. This is exactly what we are doing, and we are returning more money to the pockets of Canadians in the process. The Conservatives want to take that away from Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, for five consecutive years, the Harper government cut funding for fire prevention in Jasper by $30 million per year. I would be happy to table the documents in the House if they do not want to believe it. We have been there for Jasper. We have invested more than $60 million. We are ready to do more to help Jasper with reconstruction. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, we will not let Jasper down.

Mr. Speaker, every time the Conservative Party of Canada talks about the issue of climate change, it never talks about how it is costing Canadians, just for the month of July and August of this year, $7 billion in climate damages, which is a record, and the year is not yet over. Conservatives may have decided to let Canadians down and let the planet burn, but on this side of the House, we are here for Canadians, we are here to fight climate change and we are here to build the economy of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada is talking about climate change. We should note this somewhere in a book because it does not happen very often. If only the Conservatives would talk about the fact that for 10 years, they did nothing, which is why we had to pick up the slack. When we came to power, emissions were going to overshoot by more than 30% by 2030. Emissions are down by 8% because of our plan. We have the lowest emissions in 25 years, no thanks to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, we will have to mark our calendars. The Conservative Party is talking about the issue of climate change. If only it was to remind us that they did nothing for 10 years: no measures on energy efficiency, no measures for the electrification of transportation and no measures for renewable energy. We know that Canada's record under the Conservatives was far from stellar. From 2019 to 2021, Canada had the best record of all the G7 countries on greenhouse gas reduction. It was certainly not thanks to the Conservative Party, that has no plan for the environment, no plan for protecting the public and no plan for security.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unbelievable that the Conservative Party still has its head in the sand when it comes to climate change. For July and August alone, the insurable cost of the impact of climate change for Canadians was $7 billion. That is a record. It is unprecedented. What is the Conservative Party saying? It is saying that it will let the planet burn. The Conservatives do not have a plan to fight climate change. They do not have a plan to create jobs in the 21st-century economy, which will be a green economy. They do not have a plan to protect Canadians, to have clean water and clean air for all Canadians. That is a real disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to read the report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, which indicates that our measures are working in Canada. We have the best performance of all G7 countries from 2019 to 2021. It is true that not much progress was made in the fight against climate change under the Conservatives. Since we took office, we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 41% compared to what they would have been. This is the first time in Canadian history that greenhouse gas emissions are falling while the economy is operating at full capacity. That is thanks to our plan.

Mr. Speaker, one of the key measures of our climate change plan is putting a price on pollution. On May 8, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, “This is why, as New Democrats, as progressives, as environmentalists, we are in favour of putting a price on pollution.” I guess that, under the pressure from the Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democrats are no longer progressives and are no longer environmentalists. On this side of the House, we will continue to fight against climate change. We will continue to fight for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is simply false. It is a cap on pollution. Pollution is a bad thing, which is something the Conservative Party of Canada should understand. Does the member want to talk about investment? Let us talk about the $2-billion investment that Strathcona, an oil company in Alberta, is making in Canada to make sure that workers in Alberta and the energy sector can have a future in a carbon-constrained world, something the Conservative Party of Canada is incapable of understanding.

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's report looks back at what has been happening since 1990. What did not happen under the Harper years was any type of action on climate change. There were no measures for energy efficiency, no measures for transit, no measures for electrification of transportation and no measures for renewable energy. This has changed since 2015. We have bent the curves. We were going to miss our 2030 targets by at least 30%. We are 7% below 2005 levels. That is because of what we have been doing. It is about climate, about jobs, about the economy and about the safety of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows how much I respect him, but he still belongs to a party that wants to team up with the Conservative Party to bring down the government and prevent us from putting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector and from passing a bill on accountability for the protection of nature. I would also like to remind him that, when we took office in 2015, Canada was not even protecting 1% of its marine and coastal areas. We are at almost 16% today. We will be at 30% by 2030, as we promised at COP15 in Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleague that, when we took office in 2015, Canada was expected to miss its 2030 target by at least 30%. We flattened that curve. In 2022, we were at 7% below 2005 levels. In terms of pollution, the difference between the two is equivalent to putting an extra 69 million vehicles on Canada's roads. It is all thanks to our plan. Our plan is working, but more needs to be done. I will be very happy to work with my colleague so that Canada can do more to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say. The Bloc Québécois is encouraging us to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. What is this world coming to? As the Bloc Québécois knows full well, the use of natural resources falls under provincial jurisdiction. What we can do is take action on pollution, and that is exactly what we are doing. The sector will have to limit its greenhouse gas emissions to 35% below 2019 levels. This is an important part of our plan to fight climate change. On this side of the House, we believe that climate change is real. We have a plan for the economy and we have a plan for the future of working men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my hon. colleague, but I would sincerely encourage him to read the documentation on the project to cap emissions in the oil and gas industry, which indicates that this regulatory framework will take effect on January 1, 2026, not in 2030 as he said. We tabled that document last year. It was not two years ago, just one. The Bloc Québécois seems bent on triggering an election by working with the Conservatives, but if that happens there will be no cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, the oil and gas industry will be able to pollute as much as it wants.

Mr. Speaker, first, the federal government is investing historic amounts in public transit, at $30 billion. There are more than 400 kilometres of subway lines being built in Canada right now because of federal investment. Second, we are the only country in the G20 that has phased out subsidies to fossil fuels. We are the only ones who have done that, despite a commitment made under the previous government to do that, on which it did absolutely nothing. Liberals are there to help Canadians with transit, but we are also there to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying would be tragic if it were only true, which it is not. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said in his report that Canadians get more money back from carbon pricing than what they pay. He did not factor in the impacts of climate change. July and August in 2024 were the costliest months ever, the costliest year ever for climate impacts in Canada, $7 billion in climate impacts. What do the Conservatives have to say about that? Let the planet burn. Not on this side of the House. We will work to fight climate change and we will work to support Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as part of its effort to fulfill Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, on July 24, 2023, the Government of Canada released the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies (IFFS) Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework and the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Guidelines. The Framework provides a definition of a fossil fuel subsidy and the methodology for assessing efficiency, while the Guidelines prevent the creation of any new inefficient subsidies. The Framework and Guidelines were jointly developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Finance Canada and apply to all federal departments and agencies. Consistent with the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework, the Government of Canada has phased out or rationalized the following nine tax measures supporting the fossil fuel sector: phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands (announced in Budget 2007);reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector (announced in Budget 2011); phase-out of the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors (announced in Budget 2012); reduction in the deduction rate for pre-production intangible mine development expenses to align with rate for the oil and gas sector (announced in Budget 2013); phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining (announced in Budget 2013); allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025 (announced in Budget 2016); rationalize the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling (announced in Budget 2017); phase out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favorably treated exploration expenses (announced in Budget 2017); and, phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas, and coal activities (announced in Budget 2022). Canada is currently developing a self-review report which will include information on all identified federal fossil fuel subsidies and its self-assessment against the IFFS Framework. These reports will be made public before the end of 2024.

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, the pilot heatwave attribution system is based directly on a published event attribution analysis of a heatwave which occurred in May 2023 in Alberta. Since the pilot system began running in March 2024, it has been applied to a range of moderate heatwaves in regions across Canada over the period March – June 2024. These have been used to evaluate the system, but the results have not been published. With regard to part (b), research is going on this year to expand the system to allow attribution of cold extremes, and precipitation extremes. Applying rapid event attribution to cold extremes is a technically straightforward update to the existing system but requires research to ensure that the climate models used are able to simulate these events realistically. Attribution of precipitation extremes requires evaluation of observational datasets, and more in-depth model evaluation. We plan to include these variables in the rapid event attribution system by the end of March 2025. With regard to part (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada has collaborated with Natural Resources Canada to carry out an event attribution study of the 2023 Canadian wildfire season which has been submitted to a scientific journal but has not yet been peer reviewed. It is anticipated that this study could be used as a basis for attribution of future extreme wildfire seasons on an expedited timeline, compared to many months for a typical analysis. Such analyses are typically applied to a whole fire season, rather than individual wildfires. Research on rapid event attribution of flooding across Canada is a part of the rapid event attribution project and it will be developed in the next two to five years. Droughts tend to be longer-term phenomena that are not as well suited to rapid attribution. We do not currently have plans to include drought in the rapid event attribution system, but attribution of drought is a subject for future research. Much of this research is taking place at Environment and Climate Change Canada offices at the University of Victoria, in Victoria.

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues are perhaps aware, I have done interviews with CBC/Radio-Canada from one end of the country to the other. What we see pretty much throughout the country is that the English-language and French-language services of this corporation are connected. If the CBC is abolished, as proposed by the Conservative Party of Canada, what will that mean for the French-language service, not just in Quebec but especially outside Quebec? The Conservatives would have us believe that there would be no consequences and that Radio-Canada would be able to continue operating without any problems, even if the CBC were to be abolished. I would like to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North talk to us about consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sudbury for her question. Our government recognizes the importance of protecting our country and our democratic institutions from the threat of foreign interference. That is why we offered every party leader the opportunity to get their top secret security clearance. The Conservative leader is the only one running away from his obligations. Why? If he has nothing to hide from Canadians, he can get his security clearance and secret briefing right away. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader is only in Ottawa to do what he has done best for 20 years, and that is to serve his own interests at the expense of Canadians and their safety.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his question, as well as for his courage in speaking out against the Conservative Party of Canada and its position on a woman's right to choose. I would also like to remind him that CBC/Radio-Canada is an arm's-length corporation that decides for itself how to manage its own budget. That is why we created a Crown corporation in which the government, mainly a Conservative government, cannot intervene and whose decisions it cannot dictate.

Mr. Speaker, as opposed to the Conservative leader, I can assure the member opposite that no oil lobbyists have organized fundraisers for me. I would like to quote a colleague from her own party, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who said, “as New Democrats, as progressives, as environmentalists, we are in favour of putting a price on pollution.” Well, it looks like, under pressure from the Conservatives, the NDP is no longer conservative, no longer progressive and no longer environmentalist.

Mr. Speaker, let me read from the first paragraph of the PBO's report: “Considering only the fiscal impact of the federal fuel charge, PBO estimates that the average household in each of the backstop provinces...in 2030-31 will see a net gain, receiving more from the Canada Carbon Rebate than the total amount they pay in the federal fuel charge...and related Goods and Services Tax.” The Leader of the Opposition should apologize to Canadians for misleading them all these months.

Mr. Speaker, let me read from another paragraph from the report: “Moreover, in 2030-31, for all backstop provinces, we estimate that the average household in each income quintile will see a net gain—except for the average household in the highest income quintile”. The Leader of the Opposition wants to take money away from the middle class and poorer Canadians to protect his rich CEO friends. That is what he is doing.

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the agricultural sector. Let us talk about the climate impacts on the agricultural sector. Droughts in 2021 resulted in a 27% decline in Canada's grain production. Over the last decade, over 200 Canadian farmers have experienced cost increases and revenue loss from climate impacts. The member and his party never talk about the impacts of climate change on farmers and on the price of food in Canada. They want to try to make us believe that climate change is not happening. It is happening, and on this side of the House, we are here for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House and Canadians watching should take everything the finance critic says about the economy with a big grain of salt. It was the finance critic who told us that if we paused federal taxes, people in his province could save $1,000. This is without telling them that they would have to drive from the North Pole to the South Pole to benefit from those wonderful savings. I think we should all be very careful with what the member says about the economy in this House.

Let me read again, Mr. Speaker, from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report: “The general consensus among economists is that explicit carbon pricing is the most cost-effective approach to reducing [greenhouse gas] emissions”. The Conservative Party of Canada has no plan to fight climate change. It has no plan to adapt to the massive impacts of climate change, which are costing Canadians tens of billions of dollars. It has no plan for the economy. It has nothing to say about this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that the discussion between those Parks Canada employees was to determine whether they would do prescribed burns or mechanical removals. He knows that; Conservatives know that. To try to insinuate that because they did not want to do prescribed burns we did nothing is simply false. In fact, we invested 40 times more in forest fighting capacities around Jasper than the Conservatives did when they were in power. The company he talks about has no relationship with Parks Canada. It is a company that works for the Alberta government. I am happy to give him the number of the premier in Alberta, if he needs it.

Mr. Speaker, the energy transition means an additional 400,000 jobs in Canada by 2030. The offshore wind energy sector will be worth $1 trillion. Hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs will be created, but these jobs are not guaranteed. To get them, we need an ambitious climate plan. That is why we passed Bill C‑49, which will enable us to develop offshore wind energy in Canada. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois sided with the Conservatives to vote against renewable energy. Our government will fight to seize these economic opportunities and create these jobs even if the other parties turn their backs on the fight against climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I will quote my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He said, “This is why, as New Democrats, as progressives, as environmentalists, we are in favour of putting a price on pollution. We support taxing carbon, which already happens in the majority of Canadian provinces.” On this side of the House, we are not caving to pressure and the disinformation campaign by the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate that the NDP does not seem to be progressive anymore or environmentalists anymore.

Madam Speaker, let us talk about what we are doing on this side and what they did when they were in power. The last year that party was in power, there was $2 million to fight forest fires with Parks Canada. What we have done in the last few years is $85 million to help fight forest fires and to give the means to our forest firefighting force at Parks Canada to work with the Alberta government, to work with the city of Jasper. It was $2 million on their side and $85 million on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and all his work on environmental issues. Yesterday, our government announced additional measures to protect the public from the harmful effects of pollution, particularly forever chemicals. We know that the Conservative Party of Canada's environmental priority is giving big polluters a free pass. They want to give the oil and gas companies the green light to pollute as much as they want, for free. They are turning their backs on the work of experts and scientists and choosing instead to listen to conspiracy theories, like Premier Danielle Smith in Alberta is doing, and promote disinformation.