44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/31/22 4:11:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and ask my colleague some questions about his speech today.
There are a couple of things. I am really glad that he brought up the environmental record of the Conservatives back in the nineties. It was really strong, and it continues to be probably the strongest Conservative environmental agenda in this country, provincial or federal, ever. It begs the question: Why does the current Conservative Party neglect the environment in its platform and in its lines of questioning?
Carbon pricing is world renowned as the foundation of a policy that is forward thinking, and all of my colleagues on the other side in the Conservative Party ran on a platform of carbon pricing in the last election. However, now they seem to be railing against that foundation, despite it being a rather Conservative principle, a market-based instrument and a hallmark of many Conservative governments' platforms around the world.
I wonder why the Conservative Party continues to fight against something that is so well founded in economics while pretending to be the party of common sense and to know something about how to manage an economy.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:57:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up and find common ground with my friend and colleague opposite, particularly on what she calls the carbon tax, given that we both ran on commitment to price carbon in the last election.
I think there are two things we can agree on today: that the environment is worth protecting and that the time that we have in the House to debate important bills is limited and extremely valuable. We could stand in the House and argue against William Nordhaus' Nobel Prize on carbon pricing or something else.
Will my colleague allow this bill to go to committee so we can collectively add some amendments, if that is what is necessary? She spoke about an affront to democracy. This bill has been debated more than a budget implementation act in the House. The time has come for it to go to committee and get worked over. The time has come.
Does my colleague agree that it is time to stop debating it in this House? The democratic thing would be to allow it to pass through so it can go to committee and be improved as a bill.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:27:13 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of numbers for my colleague opposite and the other members who continue to debate this bill past the number of hours typically spent on a budget implementation act.
The first number is zero. That is the number of people in the House or really anywhere who have talked about banning single-use plastics from the health care sector. The number is zero because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about things where there is a viable alternative, such as when something can be made out of paper instead. Somebody earlier said that paper straws are worse for the environment than plastic straws. We all know that is not correct. Zero people are talking about banning single-use plastics in the health care sector.
The other number that I have for my colleague is 338. That is how many members in the House of Commons went door to door in the last election and ran on a platform including carbon pricing. We should get over the fact that pricing carbon is one of the foundations for an important environmental platform because we all ran on it in the last election.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:12:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Bill S-5 is not about the carbon tax. This is not an opportunity to talk about future plans for campaigns or anything like that. Bill S-5 is about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I think that if the members opposite are going to speak to it, they should speak directly to the bill.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:16:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague opposite, during his speech on Bill S-5, raised some pretty valid concerns and some important issues that, while I was knocking on doors this weekend, I heard from my neighbours as well. However, in talking about Bill S-5, or actually not talking about Bill S-5, we are removing time from the Order Paper and talking about these issues.
My friend and colleague wanted to talk about carbon pricing, so I have a quote for him. It reads, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms” and “we'll tie [our] carbon price...to the European Union”.
Just for the record, the European price on pollution right now, the carbon price, is about 80 euros, which is much higher than the $50 in Canada. That quote was from the “the more you burn, the more you earn” platform the Conservative Party ran on in the most recent federal election.
Also, I heard earlier tonight that if one does not have alternatives or something to replace it with, then one does not really have much of an argument. The members opposite had an opportunity over the last little while, as we debated Bill S-5 at nauseam, longer than one usually talks about a bill implementation act, to talk about some real world examples to help the environment, to provide a healthy environment or at least to provide people with those rights. However, I have not heard any of those ideas, so I will give my friend the opportunity.
Does he want to institute a new type of carbon price? Is there something else he would like to recommend or suggest to protect our environment, or are we just hot airing it tonight in the House of Commons?
309 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
