House of Commons Hansard #201 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Department of Public Works and Government Services Act Report stage of Bill S-222. The bill requires the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to consider environmental benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, when developing requirements for federal construction. It aims to promote the use of wood and other sustainable building materials, highlighting its carbon sequestration and potential for job creation in the forest industry. While widely supported, some desire stronger language to give preference to wood. 8000 words, 1 hour.
Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act Third reading of Bill S-5. The bill, which updates the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, aims to strengthen environmental protection by recognizing the right to a healthy environment and enhancing the management of toxic substances. Key amendments include a commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a focus on vulnerable populations, and a strategy to reduce animal testing. The Conservatives oppose the bill due to an amendment on tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing, which they view as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, while the NDP and Bloc Québécois support the bill, despite some reservations. 31000 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2023-24 Members debate the Department of Finance's main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, focusing on the government's economic policies. Discussions include the impact of the carbon tax on inflation and household costs, the government's fiscal responsibility and debt-to-GDP ratio, and investments in climate action and the clean economy. Members also discuss affordability measures like the grocery rebate and dental care plan, as well as housing initiatives and tax fairness. 34300 words, 4 hours.
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, we have to produce more electricity and ensure that it is green electricity because that is what investors want.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, could nuclear projects benefit from these tax credits?
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, we are also going to talk about hydrogen.
You are establishing a tax credit for investing in hydrogen. To your knowledge, will hydrogen produced from natural gas be eligible for this tax credit?
The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes
The member must direct her question to the Chair.
The hon. Minister of Finance.
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, when it comes to hydrogen, our approach is to have a system that will make it possible to determine the carbon content of the hydrogen that is produced.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to ask the minister another question.
Is that tax credit reserved only for green hydrogen, the type of hydrogen that Canada's allies who are committed to the fight against climate change really want to buy?
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, we understand the importance of having a system that investors can compare with those of other administrations. That is what we did with hydrogen.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, Germany wants green hydrogen. That is what it is asking for. Why then is the government offering a tax credit for the production of grey hydrogen? There are all sorts of colours of hydrogen and the colour depends on the source from which the hydrogen is produced. Right now, it is grey hydrogen. Why invest in that?
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, I very much appreciate the questions about the green transition and hydrogen. I agree that our allies, the investors, are very interested in Canada's hydrogen production. We think the ideal approach is to talk about the carbon content—
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, the minister is giving an investment tax credit for clean technology. Since we do not agree on what is clean and what is not when it comes to hydrogen, I would like to know what range of technologies the government considers to be clean.
Can you confirm that this credit will not be used to fund projects related to the oil and gas sector?
The Deputy Chair NDP Carol Hughes
I cannot do that, but I will ask the hon. minister to answer that question.
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, if you would like to help me answer questions, I would be very happy, because this is the third hour of this debate.
When it comes to questions about industrial policies, more often than not, we agree with the Bloc.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, I am glad to hear that the minister somewhat agrees with us. We would like to define the terms “subsidies” and “clean technologies”.
Of the $80 billion planned over 10 years, can the minister tell us how much will be invested in Quebec's green economy?
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, all of these credits will be invested in Canada's green economy. As for Quebec, as I said in our discussion about Stellantis, regional equality is very important to me—
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, there is one thing that is not entirely clear in terms of the questions I asked, specifically relating to when the minister talked about coal. I would like to clarify that. Can tax credits be given to those industries?
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, the credits will be used to make investments to create a clean economy and reduce existing greenhouse gas emissions—
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, the government chose to spend billions of dollars in public funds on extremely expensive technology to the sole benefit of the industry. The government therefore accepts the solution that the industry chose. I am talking about carbon capture and storage. Some 400 Canadian academics contacted the government to say no to carbon capture and storage. The analyses and studies are clear: it is the most costly and least useful method and its effectiveness has not been proven. Anything that is captured is often thrown back into the atmosphere.
I would like the minister to explain what it means when the government says that we need to listen to science. Why fall head first into this sham?
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, as I said a few minutes ago, generally, we agree with the Bloc when it comes to the need to take action to fight climate change. We may not agree on the use of nuclear technology and obviously we do not agree on carbon capture. We think it is a very important technology that offers a lot of possibilities in Canada thanks to our geological formations. There is a lot of interest from investors. It is a good thing for Canada.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, indeed, we do not agree on carbon capture and storage. This technology has a poor record. For example, the Shell Quest facility produced more greenhouse gas emissions than it captured with its technology.
Around the world, of the 149 projects to be storing carbon by 2020, 100 were cancelled or placed on indefinite hold. Even in the United States, most government incentives were withdrawn.
I would like to know if the minister can tell us what the secret is. Why would this technology magically work in Canada when it does not work anywhere else?
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, it is unfortunate but I do not agree with what my hon. colleague said. I believe that it really is a technology that has a lot of possibilities, not just for Canada, but also for the United States and other countries.
The reality is that Canada has created an investment credit. It will be up to the private sector to make the additional investments. The sector—
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Chair, in 2022, oil companies made $38 billion in combined profits. I think they have the money they need. If they believe in this technology, then they should be using their profits to pay for it.
I am going to ask some questions about Trans Mountain. This morning, the Prime Minister received a letter signed by over 95 organizations calling on the Government of Canada to finalize its assessment framework for fossil fuel subsidies using the WTO's definition. They specified that loan guarantees are subsidies.
In February 2022, the minister said that no additional public money would be invested in Trans Mountain. However, three months later, she gave Trans Mountain a $10-billion loan guarantee. What happened in those three months to make her change her mind?
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Madam Chair, I did not change my mind. Canada offered Trans Mountain a loan guarantee, but we did not put any additional public funds into the project, as we promised. Unfortunately, Trans Mountain may be just another issue on which we do not agree with our Bloc Québécois colleagues.
I am a Canadian sovereignist. Our country's economic independence is very important to me. The economic dependence we have on the United States because we do not have a pipeline to the Pacific is dangerous for our country.