Environment Committee on Dec. 14th, 2023

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question.

I assume you're not telling me that the federal government should bring back the national energy program and force Canadian provinces to sell their oil to other Canadian provinces, rather than in world markets. I don't think that's what you're suggesting.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you want Canadians to buy more Canadian oil, rather than American or foreign oil?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

What I want is for us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That is what Quebec is doing. In fact, Quebec is the province, along with British Columbia, with the fastest uptake of electric vehicles. We're at about 20%, and the figure is a little higher in British Columbia. So 20% of new cars sold are zero-emission vehicles. This trend is also evident on the industrial side, as we electrify our industries. So we are moving toward a world where we will consume less and less fossil fuels.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

It is not up to the federal government to decide to whom companies should sell their products.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes, but don't you think that, as Canadians, we would be better served if we consumed Canadian oil? You know, in Quebec, 47% of oil is bought in the United States: That's hundreds of millions of dollars that we send to the United States. I have nothing against Texas and Louisiana. On the contrary, I love them very much, but can you tell me how much Texas and Louisiana contribute to equalization?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Once again, I sincerely doubt that provincial premiers agree that the federal government should interfere in their decisions on the use of their natural resources. I often hear comments from provincial and territorial representatives saying that it is not up to the federal government to decide what to do with their natural resources.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I must give you one thing: You are very good at making announcements and having ambitions. Unfortunately, you are not very good at accomplishing things. I am not the one saying this; these are international figures.

You are a member of a government that has been running Canada for eight years. Eight years later, the Canada you are running is the worst in the G7 when it comes to pollution. Canada is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of delays in the implementation of current policies and commitments. There is a 27% gap between what you promised in 2015 and what you are doing now.

According to the report tabled this week at COP28 concerning greenhouse gas emissions, Liberal Canada ranks 60th. When we look at Canada's overall record, compared with all the other countries in terms of efficiency and climate change, you have fallen below the rank you had last year. Liberal Canada now ranks 62nd out of all the countries in the world. Are you proud of that record?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I have said it a number of times: We are playing catch-up in Canada because, for many years, nothing was done to fight climate change.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You have been in government for eight years, sir.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

We can draw a comparison with Great Britain, France and the Scandinavian countries, where, systematically, since the early 1990s, public policies have been put in place to fight climate change. That's what makes these countries—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

We are not here to put Jean Chrétien and his government on trial—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, your time is up.

Ms. Taylor Roy, you now have the floor.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today, and for explaining all of the different initiatives that you're taking, as well as the supplementary spending that's going into them to make sure we accomplish the goal of doing more and doing it more quickly, as it's much needed.

The price on pollution program has been a topic of conversation for quite some time. Could you perhaps explain the different components of it? Folks seem to be preoccupied with focusing solely on what is referred to as the carbon tax, and not mentioning at all the climate action incentive payments.

Could you explain how this price on pollution program works, and why it's a program that addresses affordability as well as the much-needed work we have to do to fight climate change?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

It is important to note that the price on pollution will be responsible for somewhere between 20% and 30% of the emissions reduction plan by 2030, according to analysis done by the department, so it is a key component of our climate action plan.

As you know, when we came into power in 2015, the projection was that by 2030 Canada was going to blow way past our target by at least 9%. We have managed to eliminate this present that the previous government left for us and we have now reduced emissions by 7% below 2005 levels, according to data that's already two years old, because that's how long it takes to compile inventory numbers in our country.

We are on the right track. There was, in fact, an article that appeared on the CBC earlier this week, or at the end of last week, saying we're on track for the first time in our country's history to meet the interim target for 2026.

Pricing is an important component of this. As you know, we return 90% of the revenues from the fuel charge of the carbon pricing system to households. According to independent analysis, low-income and middle-income Canadians get more money back from carbon pricing than they pay.

The richest among us don't, as we shouldn't. We shouldn't be getting money back, but most Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians, get more money back from the program. If we take that away, we're taking money away from Canadians.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

The cheques Canadians get four times a year from the backstop program don't change, but the amount that a family might pay through this program would change if different choices are made by that family. Is that correct?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Some people have asked, “Why put in place a price on pollution, and then give us money?” It's a rather simple and basic economic theory. You give a price signal, and then people can decide what to do. They can use the money they get back from the government and continue with the same lifestyle they have—we will pay for the increased cost in carbon pricing—or they can decide to change some of their behaviours, and then they would have more money back in their pockets.

They can go with a smaller vehicle. They can use some of our programs, such as home energy retrofit, to save money. Some will even decide to go with an electric vehicle. Electric vehicle sales in Canada have tripled in the last two years. We were barely at 3%; we have passed 10% in the first quarter of this year.

Canadians are seeing the multiple benefits of adopting a less carbon-intensive lifestyle, and carbon pricing is a way we can help them do that.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

It has also been said that the price on pollution, though, is causing inflation. You referred to a CBC article. I read an article just recently, I believe in The Globe and Mail, that said it was not the cause of affordability and inflation. Could you address that a bit?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The Bank of Canada has specified that the price on pollution is responsible for 0.15% of the increased costs of products in Canada. It said that it does not contribute to price increases and the inflation that we're seeing. It is not one of the drivers of inflation in Canada, pure and simple.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Why do you think there's such confusion around that, then? It seems that a lot of people believe this is the cause right now. What can we do to address that?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I think it's a convenient scapegoat by some who do not believe we should act to fight climate change and who think that fighting pollution will just happen on its own. This is why Canada has one of the worst records....

For decades, and certainly under the previous Harper government, nothing happened and pollution went up through the roof. At a time when affordability is an issue, they decided to use this as an excuse to say that the government is making the cost of everything go up because of carbon pricing. It's simply not true, and it's not just that it's not true: It is detrimental to Canada's ability to fight climate change and to the role we can play in the world.

By doing that, we are imposing on our kids and grandkids an incredible burden that they will have to live with. There will be more natural catastrophes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, I have to stop you there to let Ms. Pauzé to ask her questions.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you and your entire team for being here.

Last week in Dubai, you unveiled the famous regulatory framework for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that the delay in this measure partly explains Canada's failure to meet the 2030 emissions reduction plan target of a 40% to 45% reduction by 2030.

Although we support these regulations, we find that it took a long time for them to be announced. We also note that the regulatory framework is more of a pamphlet and that the real measure will be announced in six months. There will also be what we in the Bloc Québécois condemn—flexible measures for oil companies, as well as offset credits, among other things, to help them. So it won't make much of a difference. Maybe they won't even be asked to invest in renewable energy. That won't help them improve.

I would also like to talk about reduction percentages, which seem ambitious. I must say that I keep seeing new figures and that I am starting to get mixed up. Sometimes it's 35%, sometimes it's 31%. It's a matter of 2019 levels, and then it's a matter of 2005 levels. There has still been a 14-megatonne increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector, to which it will be entitled, according to what you published about the 2030 emissions reduction plan and the emissions cap.

You were criticized for the 2022 target, but all these figures give me the impression that ambition has not been increased and that oil company millionaires are packing their tie—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The expression is lining their pockets.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You're quite right.

In short, it is quite fascinating. With all these numbers, are you trying to sweep this under the rug? I know what we would call that in Quebec. You're a Quebecker, so you know the term “emberlificoter”. I think that it could be used here.

Why are we still providing so many favours to the oil and gas sector, which is worth billions of dollars anyway?