Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the chamber. I hope you had a great holiday. This marks the first time I have had the opportunity to be back in debate. I always love the opposition day motion. I will start by recognizing that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, who is no stranger to getting up and making sure he is able to share his wisdom with colleagues here in the House.
Of course, I do welcome the opportunity, and this is the seventh time I have had the opportunity to speak to carbon pricing as it relates to Conservative opposition day motions. It seems as though that is all that party wants to talk about, and I look forward to engaging today on the topic.
I have heard conversations about affordability and about climate change. What this comes down to is how we incentivize the technological and innovative solutions we need to reduce emissions. That is the key element here. Yes, there are other considerations, including affordability and how we actually tackle the existential threat before us, but it comes down how we drive that innovation to get to that solution. That is what I look forward to talking about today.
However, I will start with why we have a carbon price in the first place. The science is clear that we have a major challenge in climate change, and the predominant concern is greenhouse gas emissions. As I am one of the younger members of Parliament in the House, my wife and I think about our future and having a family. At 32 years old, I want to make sure that, when we do hopefully have that opportunity to raise children in this world, there is a good future for my kids. Indeed, I think many Canadians, as well as everyone around the world, are thinking about how we make sure we preserve a planet and preserve a society that we have been able to benefit from. Notwithstanding all of the challenges, we are extremely privileged to call Canada and our world home.
The enemy is emissions, not a particular industry. That is a point I want to raise as part of this debate, because sometimes I hear in the House that certain industries are bad, that with certain industries there are challenges and that we cannot be supporting certain industries anymore. I think the Minister of Labour does a very good job of saying we have to be laser-focused on emissions reduction and asking how we go about accomplishing that.
My colleagues will know I am actually a pretty strong supporter of the Canadian energy sector. I remark on the technology and innovation that drove oil sands in Alberta. Is there environmental impact? Yes, there undoubtedly is. They have also been an extremely important economic driver for the country. They continue to be so. We are the fourth-largest oil producing country in the world, and I had an exchange with one of my Bloc colleagues earlier today. What I think we sometimes fail to remember is that, because of the revenues that are generated in this country and are then available through taxation purposes and shared through equalization, that industry has helped contribute to the social welfare of this country from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland and Labrador and every place in between.
While I talk about the importance of the Canadian oil and gas sector, and the energy sector in particular, I talk about it through a lens of saying it actually has to innovate as well, because this is about reducing emissions associated with that sector. I do not villainize the Canadian oil and gas sector, but I also stand here and recognize that, if we do not drive innovation in that sector, it will not be around by 2050.
How do we focus on the technology and solutions to make sure Canada can continue to be competitive in the global marketplace, while also tackling the existential threat around climate change and reducing emissions, that being the enemy? I do not see those things as mutually exclusive. Some members in the House would say I am trying to have it both ways, but is that not the Liberal approach? We are pragmatic individuals who try to find solutions to be able to get to shared mutual outcomes.
At its core, the carbon price is a market mechanism. It is about actually trying to create incentivized change by putting it as a market price, and I sometimes chastise my Conservative colleagues, because at its core, it is small-c conservative. Many of my Conservative colleagues talk about the importance of the market economy and the importance of the private sector, yet when it comes to actual solutions to tackling the challenges around reducing emissions, they seem to want big, bossy government programs or they actually do not provide any solutions whatsoever. We know from the OECD and from the International Monetary Fund that a carbon price is actually signalled as the most efficient way to reduce emissions.
There of a couple of things I want to mention. First of all, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, contrary to what is said in the motion, explicitly makes clear that eight out of 10 households are going to receive, and do receive, more money back than they pay in on a federal backstop carbon price. The PBO report also mentions that that number is not as high when broader economic costs are recognized.
However, the idea that we can tackle climate change with no cost at all is simply a fallacy. Maybe my Conservative colleagues will not believe me, but hopefully they will believe Stephen Harper. In 2007, he recognized that the government at that time was looking at an emissions-trading type of scheme to incentivize the change I am talking about now. He said, “We happen to believe we've set it up so that those costs are manageable, so that we provide incentives for firms and sectors to exploit the technology opportunities that this regime requires. But the fact of the matter is it will cost.” Mr. Harper was right. There is a cost to transition, but there are also opportunities.
The government has constructed its policy around carbon pricing to seek to drive innovation and technology where it is available, but also seeking to manage the costs associated with that transition to protect households. That goes back to the way this policy was constructed where eight out of 10 households come forward.
That brings me to this question. If not this program, what then? My candid advice to the loyal opposition across the way is that I really believe that our politics and democracy in this country would be better served if the Conservative Party would say that, while it does not believe in what the government is doing on its carbon price system, here is our solution to drive that innovation and that technology. What a better place it would be.
Furthermore, what if, while they do not necessarily agree with what the carbon price policy looks like from the government, they offered some suggested amendments that they think would better reflect them, to be able to get to that goal. That is not what we hear. Although, of course, I want it for Canadian democracy and the betterment of this country, politically I encourage them to continue to do what they are doing, because it is going to allow the parties that are actually focused on that to continue to govern and have electoral success. Canadians expect the ability to walk that nuanced line, and the Conservatives are not doing it at this point.
There are areas where I think the carbon price system could be looked at and adjusted. Mr. Speaker, you and I are both rural members of Parliament from Nova Scotia. This is a harder sell in rural than in urban Canada. There is a 10% top-up. That is really important.
I think that there is an opportunity to look at whether 10% is an adequate enough amount to make up for the difference between some of the lived realities of rural constituents and urban. That does not mean I am against carbon pricing. That means I would like to see if we could look at amendments. We never hear about any opportunity to amend and work within the system on the federal side.
I also worry about the definition of “rural”. My understanding is that the way it is calculated right now is on a census metropolitan area. The Halifax Regional Municipality, or HRM, for example, would be considered an urban municipality, but not all areas within HRM could certainly meet the definition of an urban community. Those are little areas I think we could look at and that I think can make sure this policy reflects, attracts and benefits as many people as possible.
The other element is small and medium-sized enterprises. As we move toward 2030, I think there has to be some thought given to their propensity to contribute and how we can incentivize a corporate return such that they are not disadvantaged over the long term. Again, there is a balance between industrial carbon pricing and the household level and how we tackle that as it relates to affordability.
The last thing I would like to say is that sometimes the narrative from the opposition benches is that one cannot both put in place policies to try to fight climate change, to reduce emissions, and also support affordability. I would argue that those two things are not mutually exclusive. Look at programs this government has put in place around the greening homes initiative that allow homeowners to be able to invest in their homes to increase the equity that they have in those, but also to reduce their energy bills at the same time.
In our region of Atlantic Canada, $120 million was announced by the Minister of Environment in October. Additional funding was announced by the Minister of Natural Resources that is specific to individuals who are on home heating oil, so they can make that transition to bring down the cost of their energy bills, put more money back in their pockets and also be able to help reduce associated emissions. Those are examples of policies where we can have the opportunity.
The last thing I will say is that there are also really good ones on agriculture. I hope one of my colleagues will have the opportunity to ask me that question so that I can finish those remarks.
