44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/24/22 1:24:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill S-5. We on this side of the House certainly have some concerns about the bill, and I will talk about that a little later in my speech.
First, this is an environmental bill. It is the first update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in a very long time. Of course, protecting the environment is something that is very important and something that we should all care very deeply about. However, the challenge we have is that this is a government that talks a lot about caring about the environment, its members say lots of things about how they care about the environment, but the actual translation of that into measurable, quantifiable improvements to the environment is really almost zero. I am going to talk a little about that.
Let us talk about the carbon tax. It was brought in with enormous fanfare by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Environment, saying it was going to be the cure for reducing carbon emissions across the country. I will skip to the end of the story where, in fact, we find that carbon emissions have not gone down. They have gone up every single year under this Liberal government. I will say it again, because it is worth repeating. Carbon emissions have gone up every single year under this Liberal government, which claims to be the big defender of the environment: “We're going to solve climate change, because we brought in a carbon tax.” In fact, it is an absolute failure.
Someone who is paying attention on the other side, or who has done some of their research, will say, no, carbon emissions went down in 2020 and things are going great. It is true that carbon emissions did go down in 2020 by 5.8%. However, it is now 2022, and some people will forget but that was at the peak of the pandemic. The economy contracted by 9% during that time. My statement is that, if this is actually the Liberals' plan to reduce carbon emissions, then just be honest with Canadians and tell us that it is their plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% and reduce—
375 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:27:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not sure if the member has read the notes, but the bill before us is not about the carbon tax. Bill S-5 is about dealing with toxic chemicals, which apparently the Conservatives are very supportive of, but it has nothing to do with the carbon tax.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:44:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, the member for Dufferin—Caledon shared many different comments. He definitely spoke on a range of different things. What I find fascinating is that in the last campaign, the member and his colleagues in the Conservative Party ran on a platform that actually included two carbon taxes. In addition to the price on pollution, the carbon tax, as he refers to it, the Conservative platform also planned to bury a second price on carbon in fuel regulations.
It is fascinating that they oppose these policies in the House, because when they were running and they were speaking to Canadians, their platform said otherwise. That is why we have said, time and time again, that the Conservatives like to flip-flop.
The Conservatives also like to mislead, which is unfortunate. The member refers to the environment a lot. He says that he cares about the environment, yet rather than talk about what the government is doing, would the member like to let us know if he actually believes in climate change, and what a Conservative environment policy would look like, since it is important that we protect our environment?
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:45:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the member campaigned on not raising the carbon tax above $50 a tonne, and now it is going to go up to $170 a tonne. I find the question a little rich.
First of all, what people campaigned on in a previous election has nothing to do with Bill S-5. I will say this, though: I am against the Liberals' carbon tax. We have always been against it.
It does not do anything. I could go on and on about it. Carbon emissions have gone up every single year under the Liberal government, every single year, except the pandemic year, when they liked to say that things were working but then they did not want to talk about the contraction to the environment.
The PBO has made it clear: It does not put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. By any measurable metric, their version of the carbon tax is an unmitigated failure. We are against it. We will always be against it. We will scrap that carbon tax once we form government under the leadership of our new Conservative leader, which we look forward to.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:48:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments. First and foremost, I know there was mention made of a broken regulatory system. That system was broken because the previous government, prior to 2015, absolutely gutted that system and broke all trust in it. That is why that system was broken. That is number one.
Number two, the member talked about the government's credibility with respect to a price on pollution. I am always confused when I look across the aisle. They were for it. They were against it. They ran on it. Now, all of a sudden, they want to scrap it. I am just wondering, if our system is so bad, whether the member opposite could name for me a couple of initiatives that his government would take to reduce carbon.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:49:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is not my position to postulate on what our campaign election promises might look like coming up in the next election. I am not the leader of the party.
However, I will say this. The unequivocal fact is that the Liberals' carbon tax is an abysmal failure. We are against it. We have been very clear and unequivocal about that. It does not reduce emissions, and it does not put more money in the pockets of Canadians.
I am going to talk again about my riding in Dufferin—Caledon. I have people who commute an hour to an hour and a half every single day to get to work. These are people who are not rich. The carbon tax is punishing them every single day they fill up their tanks with gas. When they heat their homes with propane, they are punished again, and the government does not care, because people in rural communities do not vote for the current government.
The carbon tax is punitive. It is designed for the person who lives in a downtown urban centre, who can take transit and buy their energy from Bullfrog Power or some other company that provides allegedly green electricity. Everybody else, including all the people in my riding, is absolutely punished by the carbon tax. I am against it. Everyone in this party is against it, and we are going to scrap it when we form government.
241 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:51:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, obviously I would disagree with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, and so would some members of his caucus, who favour carbon pricing.
I want to correct the record, because, I am sure unintentionally, he has misstated the progress Germany has made in reducing greenhouse gases. He used the claim that 70% of Germany's electricity was still coming from fossil fuels. It is too high, but it is 30%. Renewables represent 50% of Germany's electricity grid. The result is that, yes, it is true, Germans pay very high prices for energy, but they have reduced greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels, while Canada is 20% above 1990 levels. Therefore, we should have another look at Germany's path.
I want to expand on something the hon. member talked about, which is the capacity of Environment Canada to meet the challenges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in Bill S-5. There was an observations paper that was attached to the amendment from the Senate. I would ask whether the member for Dufferin—Caledon noted that in that observation paper the Senate asks whether the government will expand resources to Environment Canada to be able to fulfill the act's promise.
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:53:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech, he went over the defects in the retail carbon tax. He also reminded the House and the public of every single target the government has missed on the environment. He made us see back to better days during the Harper years, so I would like the member to elaborate further on that.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:54:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting fact: The only government, outside of a pandemic, where carbon emissions have gone down was under Stephen Harper. That is the first time. It took a pandemic that savaged our economy by 9%, a 9% contraction in GDP, for the Liberals to get a 5.8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is their secret plan. They are just sort of whispering it to themselves. That is how they are going to lower emissions, by savaging the Canadian economy.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:24:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the parliamentary secretary, because what the Conservatives want is to reduce the carbon tax increase. We want to keep the government from raising taxes next year.
Yes, I agree, and we all agree: We want to lower taxes for Canadians, and taxes need to stop increasing.
Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that his government will cancel the carbon tax hike and, more importantly, that it will not increase taxes for Quebeckers and Canadians?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:33:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Liberals like to pretend that inflation is kind of like the weather, as though one could bundle up as the inflation front rolls in and mothers will line their children's pockets with extra twenties in case prices go up.
We all know it is caused when governments spend more money than it has and then run the printing presses to pay for it. The carbon tax is not working. The people who are concerned the most about climate change should be opposed to the carbon tax the most, because they have not hit a single target they have set for themselves. The Prime Minister's own watchdog has said that most Canadians pay more than they get back.
Will they abandon their plans to hike the carbon tax on Canadian families this winter?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:35:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are all Canadians and we are all proud of our country. As Canadians, we have one indisputable thing in common: We all have to keep warm in winter. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity for Canadians.
This government wants to increase the Liberal tax on carbon. In Quebec, many people heat their homes with propane. Families, business owners and farmers need propane.
Does the government believe that it is a really good idea to increase the Liberal tax on carbon when inflation is raging and winter is coming?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:01:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with temperatures dropping below zero degrees across the country, people are turning on the heat, but seniors are telling me they do not know how long they will be able to afford to keep their homes heated with the Liberal tax hikes on the way.
With natural gas and heating oil representing more than 60% of Canadian home heating, will the costly coalition with the NDP back off tripling the carbon tax?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:02:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, under the previous Conservative leader, just one year ago, everyone on that side of the House supported a price on pollution. The member for New Brunswick Southwest recently endorsed a carbon price for his province. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills made the carbon price a centrepiece of his leadership campaign in 2017. Everyone on that side of the House is now vehemently opposed to a carbon price.
The Conservatives have been consistent and I have to hand it to them: They are consistent flip-floppers.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:02:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must be unaware that Canada gets cold in the winter. The hot air coming from that side of the House will not heat people's homes.
A homeowner in Campbell River, B.C., recently told Chek News that their home heating costs would increase 80%, from just under $1,400 a year to almost $2,500, if the government pushes on with more tax hikes.
Will the Liberals do the decent thing, stop the pain and cancel the tripling of carbon taxes?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 3:03:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, many Quebeckers, especially those living in rural areas, heat their homes with oil, whose price has doubled since last year. Many Canadian and Quebec families must make tough choices in order to cover the costs of food and housing, in addition to paying their heating bill, because people in Quebec and Canada have no choice.
With winter quickly approaching, we are asking the government to do one simple thing, and that is to cancel the carbon tax on home heating bills. Will it do that?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:19:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I should apologize to the folks in the gallery, because this is probably not the day to come and listen to a debate. Bill S-5, as riveting as we try to make it, probably does not have the most riveting debate.
I just will recap, as I was cut short prior to question period, some of the concerns we have with Bill S-5. I will say that the Conservatives are going to support sending Bill S-5 to committee, but there are some concerns. The number one concern we have is trusting that the government is going to do what it says it is going to do, because as we know and have seen for the last seven years, it has failed on a number of its promises and has not delivered on a number of its promises.
The carbon tax has done nothing but make things more unaffordable for Canadians. It has done nothing to cut emissions. As a matter of fact, emissions have gone up every year with the imposition of the carbon tax. The Liberals have waged war on our natural resource industry and energy sector.
There is no doubt that I live in an area ravaged by wildfires, drought and flooding. We have to take concrete action on climate change, and what the government has done is stand up and say all the right things. However, it has literally done nothing. I introduced into the record some bills that have waged war on our natural resource sector and energy sector, making it more difficult for them to compete on the world stage. As a matter of fact, the Liberals have landlocked Canadian resources in many ways and have failed to secure a softwood lumber agreement. They like to say it was all due to the previous government, yet every time something happens, they fail to take responsibility.
The Liberals are in government, and I will perhaps pre-empt our colleagues across the way as to some of the questions they are going to ask. They are going to ask where the Conservatives' plan is for climate change. They are in government at this time, and they have had seven years to come up with a plan, yet they have failed to do so.
Bill S-5 deals with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 would be the first major update since 1999. It recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and requires the Government of Canada to protect this right, which I do not think anyone on this side would disagree with. What we do disagree with is that it is going to take the Liberals another two years to figure out what that means. What does it mean for every Canadian to have the right to a healthy environment? Now they are going to study it for another two more years.
One thing that is always challenging with the government is that it tells us and Canadians, “Just trust us. We'll get it done.” We should just trust, when we send a bill to committee, that it will consider the amendments and flesh out all the details in parliamentary committees. However, we have seen time and time again that the government fails to take up any of the considerations the opposition gives.
I am in the health committee right now. As a matter of fact, we start in 10 minutes. We are studying Bill C-31, a bill that has been rammed down our throats, although I think it is well intentioned. It is the rental and dental bill, and I will remind Canadians that we have essentially been given by the government and its costly coalition with the NDP two hours to study this piece of legislation and question the ministers. It is predicted that up to $10 billion is going to be spent on it, so there are just two hours of study on a piece of legislation that is very important.
I know members are going ask what I have against our most marginalized communities. I live in an area and jurisdiction where rent is very, very expensive. I am not disagreeing that the amount of money they are going to give, which I think is $600 or $500, will help for perhaps a week of rent in our neck of the woods, but what happens to Canadians who are struggling the rest of the time?
The Liberals come out with these schemes, and all we are saying is, “Show us a plan.” They have had seven years to deliver on plans, and I will remind them again that when we are talking about environmental protection, the government, after seven years, still continues to approve dumping billion upon billions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways. In 2017 alone, an estimated 167 billion litres were pumped into the waterways. Just this April, Quebec had a massive issue in Quebec City, I believe, where over two days in April, 21 million litres of sewage were dumped into the St. Lawrence River every hour. Again, every hour, 21 million litres of raw sewage were dumped.
Bill S-5 also deals with, and muddies the water a bit on, provincial jurisdiction. Again, the government, as we have seen over the last seven years, likes to ram things through. It is ham-fisted in its approach to legislation.
We know that Bill S-5 takes aim at the plastics industry and now lists plastic in schedule 1. While the Liberals have taken the word “toxic” out, substances that are regulated are still referred to as toxic. The plastics industry has some concerns with that.
When I talk about plastics, I will be the first to admit that when I was on the fisheries file, I was staggered when I saw the amount of plastic waste in our oceans. At any given time, there are about 5.25 trillion macroplastic and microplastic pieces floating in our oceans. Yes, we have to do things to combat that and have to be smart about that. There is no disagreeing with that. However, let us remember some of the important parts of society that plastics and the plastic industry contribute to.
In the health care field, plastics have been widely used to create medical tools and devices, such as surgical gloves, syringes, insulin pens, IV tubes, catheters and inflatable splints. These products are created for one-time use and help prevent the spread of dangerous diseases by eliminating the need to sterilize and reuse a device.
There is enhanced safety. The durable nature of plastics allows for its application in the creation of medical safety devices, such as tamper-proof caps on medical packaging, blister packs and various medical waste disposable bags.
Regarding increased comfort, previously, the health care industry used metal or metallic medical devices, especially in the field of prosthetics. I have a prosthetic in my knee right now that I am dealing with, which is something I am very well aware of. Owing to the durability and versatility of plastic, it is now used as a replacement for such medical components.
Regarding innovative applications, since plastic can be moulded per the requirement of a specific application, it has also been used to develop new medical devices. Also, the cost effectiveness of plastic means that it can not only be mass-produced at a cost-effective rate, but allows for a wider range of applications, making it a worthwhile investment.
Regarding the benefits of plastic, while I am not up here defending the plastics industry by any means, given what I said earlier in my speech about plastic waste and the microplastics that find their way into our oceans and waterways, there are benefits and advantages of plastics in terms of greening our industry and cost effectiveness.
An EU study, which I have in front of me, says that 22% of an Airbus A380 double-decker aircraft is built with lightweight carbon fibre-reinforced plastics. That saves fuel and lowers operating costs by 15%. It also lowers the emissions of that aircraft.
About 105 kilograms of plastics, rather than the traditional materials in a car weighing 1,000 kilograms, make possible fuel savings of 750 litres over a lifespan of 90,000 miles. This reduces oil consumption by 12 million tonnes and, consequently, CO2 emissions by 30 million tonnes in the European Union alone.
If we look at renewable energies and the use of plastics there, we know that pipes, solar panels, wind turbines and rotors all use plastic and petroleum components in them as well. When we look at cutting our greenhouse gases and making sure our homes are greener and more efficient, double-glazed windows are essential for energy-efficient homes. They have a minimum of 35 years of life and are easily maintained.
There are a number of things we can all agree on. The things that we disagree on and have concerns about are the 24 amendments the Independent Senators Group, which we know is not so independent as it is appointed by the Prime Minister and the government, brought forward.
It is challenging for us to trust what the Liberal government is going to say. I have been here for seven years. This is my seventh anniversary of being an elected member of Parliament, and I came here not so jaded. I have good friends on the other side, and I will say that there are good people on all sides of the House who come to Ottawa with the best intentions. However, sadly, what we just saw for the vote on the Conservative opposition day motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn is that only one Liberal member of Parliament voted in favour of it. He stood up for his constituents.
I will remind people that this is about the government tripling its carbon tax and making things more costly for those who live in rural and remote areas and depend on heating oil and propane to heat their homes. Canada is the only G7 country to have raised fuel taxes during the period of record-high global fuel prices, and energy analysts have predicted that Canadians could see their home heating bills rise by 50% to 100%, on average, this winter.
When this was brought up in question period, the parliamentary secretaries and the Minister of Environment stood and asked what the Conservatives have against the carbon tax, especially when the good folks on the east coast have just gone through such a horrendous natural disaster with the hurricane that took place, the 100-year storm. I heard one of my Liberal friends say there were 100-foot waves. It is unbelievable. The pictures and images are just incredible, yet the Liberals are not concerned about the cost of living, which has become unattainable for those living in rural and remote areas. Things are getting harder and harder, and even Liberal premiers are appealing to the government to do whatever it can to cancel its planned carbon tax hike and make things more affordable.
I will remind Canadians that on January 1, they are also going to wake up to a payroll tax, with more money being taken away by the Liberal government. All it has done is make things harder and harder. The Conservatives will agree to pass Bill S-5 to get it to committee, but we have some serious concerns.
1939 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:41:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague across the way knows where I stand on that question. As a matter of fact, I said it in my speech. We are dealing with extraordinary events due to climate change, such as the wildfires we saw in our neck of the woods and the floods we have seen. We had incredible weather storms, the tsunamis, the flooding we saw in the lower mainland and the hurricane we saw on the east coast.
The fact of the matter is that our climate has been changing, and we have to adapt as we move forward. We have to have a real plan. A carbon tax is not a plan to combat climate change. That is what we are saying on this side. What is the plan for the government to combat climate change?
It always wants to push that back and ask us what our plan is. We would like to remind the Liberals that they have been in government for seven years, and they have failed every step of the way to meet any targets they have set. They have failed to do the things they have promised Canadians.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:51:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Green Party for her speech. I want to get her input on the idea of competitiveness.
She knows I come from a community that does a lot of manufacturing with plastics. We try to make cars lighter and integrate it into the manufacturing. My concern is the way plastics are being treated in this bill. Inadvertently, we may be driving the pollution to other parts of the world.
For example, I brought up that 93% of the plastic going into the oceans is from 10 rivers, and none of them is in Canada. There is the Yangtze River in China, for example.
The carbon footprint for the lifetime of a plastic straw is about 1.5 grams, whereas for a paper straw it is 4.1 grams. We are putting in these policies that may affect our competitiveness here in North America.
What is the member's advice to make sure we do not have that pollution leakage to other parts of the world, like China, because of our policies being too strong or different here?
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 2:22:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at an automotive industry conference last week in Windsor, the Minister of Finance publicly contradicted the Prime Minister when she stated that the federal government will have to tighten its belt in the coming months to avoid increasing inflation inadvertently.
This announcement about reducing new budget measures was a surprise to some, as the Prime Minister has been doing the opposite since 2015. The costly Liberal-NDP coalition is finally admitting that its out-of-control spending has fuelled inflation.
Can it now admit that tripling the carbon tax is a bad idea and that it increases the cost of living?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
