Evidence of meeting #92 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was corson.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Order. Excuse me. By way of background, I built in the extra half-hour because of votes potentially interrupting and because we've often had motions tabled that caused delay. I wanted to make sure that the minister would be here for at least an hour, even if we had votes and even if we had motions in between.
He has given us more than an hour. Anyway, we have....
What's your point of order, sir?
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's a dilatory motion and non-debatable. We shouldn't be debating it and you shouldn't be debating it either.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's what I'm getting at. I'm not debating the motion. I'm giving you some background.
Okay, let's vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We're not adjourning.
Minister, I don't know what your schedule is. We can only go another 15 minutes because we lose the resources after that. Are you okay with staying another 15 minutes?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
I don't know how we're going to do this in terms of apportioning the time. I'm going to have to make a calculation to make sure everyone gets their fair share.
We have 15 minutes. I'll tell you what I think will work. It'll be two and a half minutes, two and a half minutes and then 1.2 minutes....
Anyway, who wants to go for the Conservatives for 2.5 minutes?
Go ahead, Mr. Leslie.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for staying a little longer, Minister. I appreciate your acknowledgement of calling senators regarding Bill C-234.
I'm just curious. Given that you were so adamant about not giving another carve-out to Canadian farmers and therefore having lower food prices, and given the first nations of Ontario and the Chiefs of Ontario and their stated opinions....
I know I'll get ahead of you. You're going to hide behind the Bank of Canada, so you're either going to say you believe the Chiefs of Ontario, who are suing your government, when they say life has become unaffordable because of the carbon tax, or you're going to say you don't believe them, but will you possibly think of giving another carve-out to first nations communities that are taking on the undue burdens of your carbon tax?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
We have been working with these nations, and others as well, so that they can receive their share of the fuel charge through carbon pricing—
December 14th, 2023 / 1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Why are they suing you, then?
You work as well with them as you do with the provinces, it seems. On that note, the fact is that you said earlier that provinces say the feds shouldn't interfere with their natural resource development. I appreciate that you've acknowledged that. However, your track record in the courts this year doesn't add up, obviously, with Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, being slapped down by the Supreme Court, and a host of other cases being slapped down due to the unconstitutional nature of your imposition on the rights of the provinces to regulate their own prosperity in the natural resource sector.
This is my question to you: Did you seek external legal opinions over the constitutionality of your clean electricity regulations and your proposed methane regulations, particularly given the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding your imposition on the provinces?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
There have been no recent Supreme Court decisions. There's been an opinion by the Supreme Court on impact assessment. It's not a decision. There's a difference.
There's been a Federal Court judge who has disagreed with our list on plastic pollution. We've already said we will appeal that.
You seem to forget there was also a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada—not an opinion, and not a Federal Court judge—that said the federal government can act on matters of pollution and, more specifically, on climate change pollution through carbon pricing, and that's exactly what we're doing. We're using similar mechanisms for electricity.
As for methane, I find it difficult to understand why the Province of Alberta would be against the new methane regulations when it has supported the previous ones. It's okay for us to develop methane regulations—
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Next up, we'll go to Madame Chatel.
I'm sorry I have to be strict at this point, but that's the way it is.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The Conservatives would like to take us back to the stone age when it comes to climate action, but the world is moving forward with carbon pricing internationally. A lot of work is being done there. There are also border adjustments for carbon.
If we regress to the stone age of climate action, what will happen to our economy when we want to export our products to countries that have carbon pricing if we, by accident, no longer apply it?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
That's a great question.
I would be very curious to hear what the Conservative Party representatives have to say about this, given that the European Union and the United States of America, our largest trading partner, are developing this border tax. If Canada abolishes carbon pricing, we'll have a price imposed by the Europeans, the Americans and others who develop it. I would be curious to hear the Conservatives' comments.
They are going to jeopardize the economic prosperity of the country solely for ideological reasons, because they have no plan to fight climate change, since they don't really believe in it. You can't say that you believe in something if you aren't prepared to take action on it, yet that's the position the Conservative Party finds itself in. By acting irresponsibly, it's threatening Canada's economic prosperity and, of course, environmental prosperity, which affects the kind of planet we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
That would mean job losses, but it would also mean an increase in the price of products. In terms of affordability, not following the major economies of the world would be a big step backwards for us.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
It's difficult at this point to put a figure on the impact that the imposition of tariffs by the United States, the European Union and probably other countries would have on Canada. That said, there would definitely be an impact. That's quite clear.
Just look at what's happening with the softwood lumber tariffs, which are affecting thousands of jobs in Canada's forestry sector. Imagine the repercussions on a host of other sectors, from food to technology to auto parts. In Canada, all the sectors that export—
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll have to stop there because the member's time is up.
It's your turn, Ms. Pauzé, and you have about a minute.
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'm fixated on the numbers today, Mr. Minister.
The recent budget implementation provides $83 billion in assistance to oil companies, including $30.3 billion in tax credits. Oil companies are making record profits, and they don't need handouts. They can afford to invest. If they really believe in carbon capture and storage, they should take their profits and invest in this technology. But they're not doing that; they're taking taxpayers' money. The government is giving them taxpayers' money.
There have been 2,000 meetings of Canadian oil lobbies, and their influence is clear to see. Your government is giving them taxpayers' money, while the oil companies have ample means to make the investments needed to clean up their pollution. Don't you think that's scandalous?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
According to the World Trade Organization, a subsidy is an advantage given to a particular sector. However, the tax credits we've put in place for carbon capture and storage are not just an advantage for the oil and gas sector. It's available to all companies that want to use this technology. It won't be just for that sector, and companies will have to compete with others.
That's why we've eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. There's still public funding, which wasn't part of the G20 commitments. We're working on that, and Canada is the only G20 country that has committed to doing that.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, in 2021, your party promised to “introduce a Clean Electricity Standard [that will] achieve a 100% net-zero emitting electricity system by 2035.” However, I have an analysis here from ECCC showing that in 2035, according to your new policy, there are still going to be nine megatonnes of emissions on the grid.
How is retaining a grid that emits nine megatonnes per year net-zero?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
It is because those emissions will have to be compensated. The commitment was not to have a fossil fuel-free—
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, but it says net-zero. They will have to be compensated by what?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
They will be compensated by different mechanisms—
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
—like offsets, for example, which are an agreed-upon mechanism as part of the Paris Agreement. Canada is making very—
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You're saying that those nine megatonnes will have to be offset using credible offsets in 2035.