QUESTION PERIOD — Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act
November 22, 2023
Governments have a responsibility, minister, to legislate within their own lane, but twice — first with Bill C-69, the “no pipeline bill,” and now with the so-called toxic single-use plastics bill — you have violated that. The court agreed that you were out of your lane and that the science is flawed, but you insist you will appeal, which would be a huge cost of tax dollars to fight this in court.
Should you not first do your homework more diligently and stop fighting with provinces in court and billing the public for your errors?
Thank you, senator.
You seem to forget that just two years ago we won in the Supreme Court of Canada on carbon pricing.
On the Impact Assessment Act, it was not a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, but an opinion. That opinion did say that some of the Impact Assessment Act was unconstitutional, but they also confirmed that parts of the act were entirely constitutional.
In terms of plastic pollution, I will make no excuse to fight to protect the health of Canadians. We are finding plastic substances in our brains. We are finding it in our fetuses. We are finding it in our kids. We are finding plastic pollution in our environment, and I will continue to fight to protect the health of Canadians, and I will make no excuse for that.
I have a very simple follow-up question on another matter raised by so many of my colleagues here today. Why exactly do you oppose giving a small bit of help to farmers and food producers with some small relief from the carbon tax?
These are the people who feed not only us but the world. You have already had carve-outs and help for others in need. Why is it that with farmers and food producers you seem so hell-bent on just saying, “No, no more help for you”?
Maybe $1.5 billion is pocket change for you —
No. That’s not what I asked —
— but I think for most Canadians that’s a lot of money. That’s the money we’ve provided to farmers, and we will continue supporting farmers.
Welcome, minister, to the Senate. Thank you for being here with us.
On the matter of ministers talking to senators, my view is that if the whole world — that is, every lobby group and every individual Canadian — can talk to us, I don’t know why the federal government and cabinet would not talk to us. As the new independent Senate evolves, I would say you have an obligation to step up two-way communication with us.
On the matter of Bill C-234, can you remind us again of some of the details you mentioned in terms of the $1.5‑billion carve‑out that already exists?
Thank you, senator. I believe that we are better off as a nation now that we have independent senators in the Senate. Having conversations is very different from trying to lobby people. In fact, I have senators coming to me to talk about things that they care about. I think that’s a very good thing for Canada.
As I was saying earlier, we’ve put in place more than $1.5 billion of support for the agricultural sector. I could give you the example of Barlow Farms, a 180-year-old family-operated cash crop farm in York, that received more than $170,000 under the adoption stream to purchase and install a new mixed-flow grain dryer. As a result, their use of propane in the drying process will be reduced by 46%. That’s the type of support we are providing to farmers across the country to help them reduce their carbon footprint and reduce their energy bills.
The second part of my question takes us back to why we have concerns about carbon footprints. Sometimes, I think we are so far along in the discussion on the environment that we forget to remind people why it started.
What is wrong with carbon? Why are we concerned about it? Further, regarding the carbon tax, why are you taxing us if you’re just going to give us the money back?
If representatives of the Insurance Bureau of Canada were here, they would tell you that the cost of climate change to Canadians has gone up 400% in the last 40 years. This is a cost that all Canadians are paying. Just in 2021, climate impacts cost the agricultural sector in Canada $500 billion.
The purpose of our pollution pricing system is to make this revenue-neutral, so there’s no money left in the government coffers. We return 90% of the revenues to households and then people are free to decide what to do with this money. They can continue the same habits in terms of consumption of fossil fuels, or they can change their habits and then start saving money that they can do other things with rather than continuing to pay for fossil fuels.
