Julie Dabrusin

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the way we calculate our emissions around the world, by international agreement, is by looking at what is combusted within our own countries. We are in fact, through the emissions reductions plan, putting forward strong projections for all sectors.

When we focus on oil and gas, it is not just oil and gas. In a city like Toronto, buildings are one of the largest sources of emissions. We are putting forward projections for all sectors across our economy to reduce our combustion in a very active way. That is why, when I talk about things like zero-emission vehicles, those are all part of the plan, as are retrofits for buildings. We are doing the work that we need to do, and we are providing international support for countries that need to do that work at home as well.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

Climate change and the environment are very important to me and my community. It guides the work that I do in this place, and that is because the threat is not theoretical. It is real. It is happening right now. Right across our country last summer we saw floods and wildfires. These events destroyed people's homes and their livelihoods. We need to take strong action as we face this reality.

Today, I will focus on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which we have committed to do by 2023, but I would like to begin by talking about the heavy lifting that we must do and that we are doing right now to fight climate change.

One of the most impactful and earliest steps we took was to put a price on carbon pollution. It encourages businesses and individuals to make choices that result in fewer emissions.

It is a strong market mechanism, and all of the funds that are collected through the price on carbon pollution are returned to the province where it is collected. None of it stays with the federal government. I want to be clear about that because sometimes I feel like that is lost in our conversations. It is described sometimes as a tax, but that was clearly put to bed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not, and none of the funds stay here with the federal government. It is all returned to individuals and the provinces from where they were taken.

I will give some good news. We have finally begun to flatten the curve on emissions. The first year when we saw the curve beginning to flatten was 2019. There was a decoupling. The economy grew, but emissions did not grow at the same pace, and in 2020, our emissions dropped. Much of that was due to the pandemic and the fact that we reduced travel. There is no doubt about that, but part of that drop was also due to the fact that we have cleaned up our electrical grid

As part of that, we are well on our way to removing coal-fired electricity from our electrical grid, which would reduce air pollution and emissions. We are investing in nature-based solutions, such as planting two billion trees and working to protect our lands and waters. We have put into law that we must achieve net zero in our country by 2050. We released the emissions reduction plan under the law for net zero by 2050, which sets projections for all sectors of our economy to reduce emissions and includes mechanisms to reduce combustion of fossil fuels, such as moving to 100% of all new vehicle sales being zero emissions by 2050.

Today's motion focuses on the narrower issue of fossil fuel subsidies and the work we are doing toward our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The commitment began in 2009, when Canada joined other members of the G20 in agreeing to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. The leaders' statement from that G20 said, “This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Previously, we had committed to meet the goal by 2025, and over the last year we have accelerated that timeline to be completed by 2023. So far, the government has rationalized or phased out the following nine tax measures that had provided preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel sector: the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, which was announced in budget 2007 and completed in 2015; the reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2011 and completed in 2016; the phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors, which was announced in budget 2012 and completed in 2017; the reduction in the deduction rate for preproduction intangible mine development expenses to align with rate for the oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2018; the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2021; allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025, which was announced in budget 2016; rationalize the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling, which was announced in budget 2017 and completed in 2021; a phase-out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favourably treated exploration expenses, which was announced in 2017 and completed in 2019; and the phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities, which was proposed in budget 2022 and will be completed in 2023.

As part of the process to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, G20 countries have been pairing among themselves for a transparent review of their work. In 2018, Canada committed to undergoing a peer review process with Argentina. We are the fourth pair of countries within the G20 to undertake that process, and it is ongoing.

The previous six countries to do a peer review have generally considered fossil fuel subsidies based on the World Trade Organization's definition of “subsidy”, which is government spending, tax or non-tax, that provides a benefit. Further, countries have tailored that definition to subsidies aimed at the fossil fuel sector by focusing on those that directly or indirectly lead to increases in the production or consumption of fossil fuels.

To complete our own work to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2018 conducted an extensive review of non-tax measures. This was complemented by a consultation that ran from March to June 2019 on the government's draft framework to review measures outside the tax system. This feedback is taken into account in the work being done by Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

It is reasonable to expect that the question of what type of spending is aligned with a transition to net zero will change over time. In other words, government spending in support of the transition to a net-zero, reliable, affordable energy system could look different in 2023 from how it will look in the future. I will provide an example. Support for diesel use in northern and remote communities may need to continue in the short term to ensure the provision of essential energy services. However, in the longer term, as the government continues to invest in ways of moving these communities off diesel, these types of supports may no longer be considered aligned with government objectives once viable replacement options are put in place.

Before my time is up, I would like to address the motion's reference to carbon capture and storage. At a time when we need every tool at our disposal to reduce emissions, this is not the moment to remove support for carbon capture and storage. The IPCC has recognized that it plays a role in reducing emissions, as does the International Energy Agency. It is one part of what needs to be done to reduce our country's emissions and reach net zero.

Recently, at the environment committee, Professor Normand Mousseau shared the following testimony in response to a question from the member for Victoria.

He stated:

We absolutely have to implement all reduction measures, but we're also going to have to invest in capture and storage. I'm not talking about utilization, I mean storage. Otherwise, we won't be able to achieve net zero.

We believe it is important to focus on how programs can support climate targets, international commitments, long-term prosperity and job creation in the face of a global energy transition. It is global. This is happening all around the world. Canada is on a journey to a net-zero future, one that will be anchored by a clean, affordable and reliable energy system. It is important to ensure that government spending and investment are well aligned with that journey. That is the work that we are doing and are committed to completing.

[Petitions, May 17th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the Ontario Line is a public transit project that is going to have major impacts in my community. I fought hard at the time so that funding was provided by the federal government to Ontario for public transit and that there would be conditions.

I am presenting a petition from members of my community who would like the minister to report to the public with a review of the Ontario government's level of compliance with the federal government's funding conditions, report to the public on the steps he intends to take to monitor and enforce compliance with federal funding conditions and release federal funds for the Ontario Line projects only when the ministers can confirm to the public that Ontario is in full compliance with the federal funding conditions.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite may know, one of my former constituents, Mark Farrant, has been a very strong advocate on this issue and has really pushed it far.

This is a very great piece, and I am really happy the member is bringing it as a private member's bill. What does he see as what can be complemented from our provinces and territories in addition? I know that some changes were made in Ontario as well. What can this drive as change at the provincial and territorial level?

[Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, May 11th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on private member's bill, Bill C-234. This is an important issue.

Agriculture plays an essential role in Canada's economy. Our farmers also help to feed the world. I am a city person, and I can tell members that city people rely on farmers across our country for the food on our tables. For that, we are deeply grateful. Perhaps now, more than ever, at this time of geopolitical uncertainty and rising costs, it will be vitally important to ensure that Canada's agricultural production continues to grow.

Our government is supporting Canada's farmers to make that happen, and we will continue to do so. The question we have to consider is how best to do so. More specifically, the question is how we deliver support for farmers that is effective in helping them ramp up production, without undermining important goals like addressing climate change, which itself poses a severe threat to agriculture production.

We know for a fact that farmers across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change first-hand, with floods and droughts. In fact, I was looking at some reports about the recent flooding over the last year in B.C., which is an example of a weather event caused by climate change. It caused massive damage to farms in the area. In one report, one farmer was talking about having lost 600 acres of crops, which were all under water. There were stories of expensive farm technology lost in floods and cattle that died, along with other farm animals, and that is tragic for so many reasons, like for the disruption in people's lives and also in hitting their bottom line.

To their great credit, they are taking action to address it. Farmers have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices, like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques, that can help reduce emissions and save them both time and money. Just recently, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change went to visit a farm to look at some of those practices.

Our government is taking action to support them. Our recent budget, for example, proposes to provide a further $329.4 million over six years starting in 2022-23, with $0.6 million in remaining amortization, to triple the size of the agricultural clean technology program. It also proposes to provide $469.5 million over six years, with $0.5 million in remaining amortization, starting in 2022-23, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.

The budget proposes $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and address other environmental co-benefits, with the details of this to be discussed with provinces and territories. It proposes to provide $100 million over six years, starting in 2022-23, to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that will allow for net-zero-emissions agriculture.

The budget also proposes renewing the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture in partnership with provincial and territorial governments. Each year, these programs provide $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. This includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2 billion of support on average per year.

At the same time, Canada's agricultural sector already receives significant relief compared to other sectors under the federal carbon pollution pricing system. The federal fuel charge regime provides substantial upfront relief for farmers for their purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel, provided that all or substantially all of the fuel is for use in eligible farming activities, such as the operation of farming equipment and machinery.

Our government has also proposed a refundable tax credit in the 2021 economic and fiscal update for farm businesses operating in backstop jurisdictions, starting in the 2021-22 fuel charge year. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount increasing as the price on carbon increases. This will help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming while maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.

These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

My concern is that Bill C-234 could take us in a very different direction. The bill would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, sometimes referred to as the GGPPA, to expand fuel charge relief to farmers by modifying the definition of “eligible farming machinery” to include heating and grain drying.

More specifically, it would modify the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include natural gas and propane. This raises a range of potential concerns that must be carefully considered. For example, as this bill stands, farmers would effectively be double-compensated.

In effect, they would benefit from the proposed tax credit while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. This would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces, as the federal carbon pricing system is revenue-neutral and proceeds must remain in the jurisdiction of origin.

Let me remind hon. members that Canada's carbon pollution pricing system is efficient and cost-effective precisely because it puts a price on carbon pollution and then allows businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions.

With the significant support for farmers already in place under Canada's pollution pricing system, the additional financial supports proposed in Bill C-234 run the risk of removing this price signal completely. This price signal is the linchpin for effectively executing Canada's climate change plan.

A price on carbon pollution provides Canadians with an incentive to make more environmentally sustainable choices and to invest in greener alternatives that create a greener, cleaner economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than telling Canadians how to reduce emissions, a price on carbon pollution allows businesses and people to make those decisions in a manner that best suits their own circumstances.

Carbon pollution pricing also delivers economic benefits, because it encourages Canadians and businesses to innovate and to invest in clean technologies and long-term growth opportunities that will position Canada for success in a cleaner and greener global economy.

That means more jobs for Canadians, benefiting their families and communities across the country. Bill C-234 may very well undermine the effectiveness and benefits of this system. These are all important considerations Canadians expect us to take into account as we assess the potential merits of Bill C-234.

As we do so, we must bear in mind that the federal carbon pollution pricing system is not about raising revenues. The government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. That must be underlined: It is not staying with the federal government.

Our plan directs all proceeds from federal carbon pollution pricing back to the jurisdictions from which they were collected. Returning these proceeds helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but it does not change the incentive to pollute less. With this system, consumers and businesses have a financial incentive to choose greener options every time they make a purchase or investment decision.

Canada has been a leader in this regard and we should not do anything to compromise this. In the context of Bill C-234, we must be carefully considering it within the context of this pricing system.

[Sports Hall of Fame Inductee, May 9th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, at the age of five, my daughter signed up to play hockey. She was able to do that because of the leadership of great Canadian athlete Abby Hoffman.

In 1956, when she was nine years old, Abby Hoffman wanted to play hockey. She cut her hair short, registered as “Ab Hoffman” and excelled. When it was discovered that she was a girl, her hockey career ended. Later, Abby discovered her love for running. She represented Canada at the Olympics and Pan American Games and won medals for Canada as a runner, but to do that she also, once again, had to break through barriers. She actually opened up Hart House, which was only open to men until that time, to women so that they could run and play sports as well.

She continues to fight to this day for women in sports. Next week, she is going to be inducted into the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame. I thank Abby for her leadership and congratulate her, from all Canadian girls. I wish her a happy Canadian Jewish Heritage Month. She is a big part of our wonderful heritage.

[Online Streaming Act, May 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, from an economic interest, would the member agree that it is important for us to support our creative industry, which is an important economic sector in our country, to make sure that the intellectual property they create stays here in our country and that we sustain that industry going forward, rather than allowing it to be sold off and only watching creators from other countries?

Is it not important for us as a country to show support for our creative industries and to show the distinct voices, prairie voices such as Heartland, a great TV show from Alberta? Is it not important that we have that at the centre of our policies when we are looking at this?

[Lowering the Voting Age, May 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, yesterday we began the debate about lowering the voting age in this place. In honour of that moment, I would like to hand the mike over to members of my youth council. Jessica says, “Adolescents at the age of 16 are at the point in their lives where they are most engaged in their communities, as they are starting to get jobs, driver's licences and generally are getting involved in society. Getting adolescents involved with voting can lead to more long-lasting participation in democratic activities throughout their life”.

Safik was less sure, saying, “Maybe we can incorporate a debate on how to educate youth before making this leap, so they can educate themselves to take it seriously”. Jona says, “Giving youth a vote will offer an additional perspective and will make voting results more well-rounded. Youth have very different eyes when looking at the world, so giving the older youth the vote will make our system a better democracy.”

I thank my youth council. I will always be there to amplify their voices.

[Climate Change, April 4th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is important to note once again that the emissions reduction plan does chart a course across all sectors. However, the oil and gas sector is Canada's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and we will not be able to reach our target without significant contributions from our highest-emitting sector.

The emissions reduction plan presents modelling of the most economically efficient pathway to meeting Canada's 2030 target, and this modelling projects that the emissions from the oil and gas sector could decline by about 31% from 2005 levels to reach 110 megatonnes in 2030. This is a guidepost for action and will guide the Government of Canada's work with industry, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples and others to develop a cap on oil and gas sector emissions.

Canada is positioning our industries to be green and competitive by helping industries adopt clean technology on their journey to net-zero emissions. This is the work we are doing and we will continue doing it.

[Climate Change, April 4th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am happy today to rise to speak about the emissions-reduction plan because it is ambitious and it is achievable. It is a plan that provides a road map across all sectors of our economy. This is not about one file, as the member opposite just stated. It is about taking an approach across all sectors to reduce emissions and to make sure that we build a clean future, sustainable jobs, and a strong economy going forward.

The plan is about healthier communities. It is about reliable and affordable energy, good jobs and clean air. It is important that, as an early deliverable under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, the plan is that the road map goes sector by sector with the measures needed for Canada to reach its ambitious and achievable emissions-reduction target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero emissions by 2050, in a fair and affordable way.

The scientific and economic imperative to reduce emissions is clear. As countries and businesses around the world race to transform their operations to net-zero emissions, it is critical that Canada be a leader and not be left behind. To create good jobs, grow a strong economy and build a brighter and healthier future for everyone, enhanced climate action is needed in our country today.

The member opposite mentioned not speaking about the accolades from the outside world, but it is important to mention that the plan has received support from environmental groups and the scientists who work behind them. It has received support from climate scientists such as Andrew Weaver, who was the head of the Green Party in B.C.

There is support from many actors, including industry, to show that this is a strong road map going forward. From transportation to the oil and gas sector to heavy industry, agriculture and building waste, every sector in every region has a role to play in meeting Canada's 2030 climate target. This plan includes, as was mentioned, $9.1 billion in new investments and a suite of new measures to help mobilize Canada toward a truly sustainable economy and becoming a leading competitor in the global transition to cleaner industries and technologies. For example, the plan makes it easier for Canadians to switch to electric vehicles by committing $1.7 billion to expand the iZEV purchase incentive program for light-duty vehicles and to make zero-emission vehicles more affordable.

Canada is uniquely positioned to be a global leader in this century of climate mitigation and adaptation, thanks to our abundance of natural resources, a highly skilled workforce and a strong financial system. This plan builds on the strong foundation set by the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change and the strengthened climate plan. Since 2015, the government has delivered $100 billion in investments for climate action, and these efforts are working. Thanks to the actions of millions of Canadians, we have been able to halt our once upward trend of the emissions curve and bend it downward. This road map will build on this progress and chart the course to lowering emissions by 40% below 2005 levels.

Carbon capture, utilization and storage, CCUS, is a significant opportunity for Canada. Projections show it will play a critical role in enabling a prosperous net-zero economy in Canada by 2050. It is a tool in the tool box, but it is not a silver bullet, nor have we said it would be. It is an important tool for us to use. It is an important component that will help us to tackle emissions—