44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/31/22 5:32:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here in the House to address the government's bill, Bill S-5, and more broadly to address the environmental policy approach taken by this government.
Sadly, we are seven years into the tenure of this government, and it still does not have an environmental plan. It does not have a plan to address the challenges we face in terms of climate change or various other issues. What it has in reality is a tax plan that it would like to tell us is an environmental plan. Its plan is to continue to increase its carbon tax, to triple its carbon tax, yet it wants to back away from the actual nature of that policy and the mechanism by which it is supposed to work.
Those who favour a carbon tax as a response to the challenges we face associated with climate change believe essentially that raising the price of goods that entail carbon emissions will discourage people from consuming those goods, engender less consumption of those goods and therefore entail fewer emissions overall. That is the logic of a carbon tax. It is not one I agree with, but I can at least understand that is how it is proposed by those who defend it, at least by those who defend it honestly.
However, entailed in that process is the idea that by increasing the price of goods, such as driving, airline flights and heating one's home, people will do it less. When we read in the news that people are suffering because of higher prices, that they are worried about whether they can heat their homes, that they are being forced to cancel vacations or trips in their car to visit or support family members, it is important for people to understand that it is not some accidental by-product of the carbon tax policy. It is actually the purpose of the carbon tax policy. It is to lead people to do fewer of those activities. It is to lead people to heat their homes less, to drive less, to travel less, etc.
The government has put in place a policy that is designed to limit the ability of Canadians to do those various things, yet we have members of this coalition, NDP and Liberal politicians, who act surprised that this is the outcome. They ask why gas prices are higher. I do not know, but maybe it is because they have imposed a tax on gas specifically designed for the purpose of raising the price. That would be one explanation of why gas prices are higher.
Now, let us acknowledge that there are many things that go into the price of gas. There are many things that go into the price of these various goods that are taxed by the carbon tax, but one of those contributing factors to the price is the tax that is put on top of it. Therefore, I wish members of the costly coalition in this place would be willing to own up to the fact that this is the consequence of the policy they have put in place.
We should also note just how grievously unfair that policy is, because the people who are going to be forced to cancel those trips and the people who are going to be forced to sit in the cold are people who are relatively less well off. Many members of the House, people who are in a better position financially, are going to be able to continue to afford to travel. They are going to be able to continue to afford to heat their homes, but many Canadians will not. Those many Canadians bear the brunt of the cost associated with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very regressive in the way that it hits the population. It is regressive in that it imposes those costs most on those who can least afford to pay them.
This is not an environmental plan. Why do I say that? It is because the independent analyses have shown very clearly that the government's carbon tax will not achieve the environmental objectives that it wants it to. Why is that the case? Why does this logic that imposing costs on people will lead to less consumption not work? It is because many of the goods we are talking about are essentials.
We live in Canada. People need to heat their homes. Of course, there are adaptations people can make. They can make renovations to their homes, but for those who are most affected by the carbon tax, they likely struggle to afford those kinds of adaptations. Therefore, the approach we have emphasized is how we support people with new technology but also with various kinds of deductions that allow them to make those kinds of adaptations.
Our approach has always emphasized technology as opposed to taxes. That is why a previous Conservative government brought in the home renovation tax credit. Some of these changes are aimed at making it easier for people to afford the adaptations they need. It is an environment-oriented tax cut instead of imposing a punitive tax on people. A tax-cut approach helps people have the resources they need to make these kinds of adaptation.
The problem is, when people are barely getting by and we increase costs on them, that is not going to lead them to make adaptations to their lives. That is not going to allow them to afford a new home with better insulation. They are struggling to get by. That is the point and that is the reality. This carbon tax is part of a politically manufactured affordability crisis that we have in this country. The government's out-of-control spending is driving up the cost of everything by driving inflation. The government is responding to that by additional punitive taxes. Of course, we know about its planned payroll taxes, but also its plan with the carbon tax.
It is particularly notable now, in the global context we are in, what a failure the government's approach to energy policy is. More and more countries are recognizing how important energy security is. We are seized with the horrific, genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we are thinking about what more we can do to support Ukraine. There are many areas the government needs to do more, but one of those areas is to work toward, as quickly as possible, increasing Canadian energy production and support our European allies by supplying them with the vital energy they need to not be dependent on Russian gas.
Canada is one of the only democracies in the world that has an abundance of natural resources. As it happens, many of the world's democracies are geographically small, populous nations that rely on the import of natural resources.
Within the community of democratic nations, because we are rich in natural resources and because we are more sparsely populated, I believe Canada has a special vocation in terms of supplying our like-minded allies with the energy resources they need to not be reliant on dictator oil and not feel forced to contort their foreign policy to access the energy that they need. Canada can play that role in displacing Russian energy in Europe.
It is not just about replacing foreign energy imports into Canada, although that is part of the picture. We should be replacing foreign energy imports into Canada and displacing dictator oil from our European partners. This is an urgent issue in terms of global security and Canada needs to step up. However, the Prime Minister and other ministers continue to throw cold water on proposals for more support to Europe in the form of natural gas production, exports and other things along those lines. It is a huge missed opportunity.
An hon. member: I was choking, too.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP is making jokes about my cough. I will not take it personally, and I wish him well.
The legislation we have in front of us does not respond to—
1359 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:41:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I could say about that member's contributions to the House. I will come back to it in due course, but I do want to get in some final points.
Bill S-5 is a piece of legislation that contains some things that Conservatives can support. We look forward to proposing amendments to aspects of the legislation. A major concern of my constituents is the fact that this legislation continues to allow the label “toxic” to be associated with plastic, yet we use plastic for so many everyday things that labelling plastic, in general, as toxic is just ridiculous.
Work is required. In general, I think it is clear that the government's proposals around the environment are a total failure. They are not working, and they are manufacturing an affordability crisis in Canada. We need to emphasize technology, not taxes, and we need an approach that addresses the affordability crisis and improves the environment at the same time.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:43:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that his government's plan is to triple the carbon tax over time. It tells us it is going to be tripled, and that we will get to that tripling, but only through little increases that we will barely notice.
The member is right, it is increasing on April 1, and those increases add up insofar as they impact virtually all of the goods that individuals consume. Moreover, I think people want us to take a step back and say that this tripling of the tax, which is being done a little at a time, will add up and significantly affect their bottom line.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:45:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
In principle, I agree with the idea of a right to a healthy environment.
I also mentioned the problem with the designation of plastics as toxic in general. That is not something that is changed by the bill. It is a pre-existing problem regarding the intentions of the current government. As the member suggested, that is both a positive and a negative.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:46:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, unless the member disagrees with his party, he supports the idea of imposing increasingly higher taxes on gasoline, so I think it is contradictory of the New Democrats to say, on the one hand, that they want to impose taxes on gasoline, which are specifically designed to raise the price, but on the other hand maybe there is some other backdoor mechanism we can use to reduce the price.
I think they need to answer this question directly: Is their goal higher gas prices or lower gas prices? If it is higher gas prices, they should own it and admit it. If they want lower gas prices, I have a simple solution, which is to stop increasing the carbon tax. If we want gas prices to be lower, then we can reduce or remove the tax that is specifically designed, as it is currently structured, to increase that price. That should be fairly straightforward and simple. If we did not have a carbon tax, maybe we could ask what else we could do to lower the price, but let us first be honest about the fact that his party is pushing for a policy designed to increase the price of gas.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:53:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the people of Iran are at a critical point in their history. The protest movement in Iran, aimed at ousting the radical dangerous regime, has an incredible amount of momentum right now. I salute the courage and the heroism of the people involved in this movement. At the same time, the horrors of this regime have been going on for decades. There have been various protest movements over the years where the Iranian people have stepped out to fight for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Sadly, in the past these protests have not succeeded in achieving their fundamental objectives, but I am hopeful and optimistic that this movement seeking fundamental political change will succeed.
The fact that this repression, and the response from the people, had been going on for a number of years, led to the proposition of a motion in the House, which I put forward four years ago, to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity within the Criminal Code. That was back in 2018. Now, on that motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity, the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the entire Liberal caucus voted in favour of that motion to immediately list the IRGC as a terrorist entity.
In the intervening four years, not only did the government not list the IRGC, but we also saw no application of sanctions. We saw no action whatsoever. Up until recently, there was not a single official associated with the Iranian regime that even had Magnitsky sanctions applied. We periodically ask the government why. What is the plan? Why has it not listed the IRGC? Why are there no Magnitsky sanctions? Why has it not taken the steps that are vitally required?
Most recently, we had the murder of Mahsa Amini, which grabbed the public's attention around the world. The result of that was significant political pressure on the government, with tens of thousands of people rallying. These events were largely ignored by the government, but the political pressure mounted.
Then it wanted to look like it was doing something, so now we see this effort by the government to wrap itself in the image of this movement. The Prime Minister himself attended an event this weekend. I think protesters wanted to see what the government was going to do to take action. The Prime Minister will still not list the IRGC, so great, he showed up at an event weeks after the fact.
What I want to know from the government is, aside from the photo ops, aside from the lobbed questions, where is the substance? Why did it take so long for the government to do anything? Moreover, when will it actually list the IRGC as a terrorist organization?
It is bizarre to me. We had the Deputy Prime Minister make an announcement to say that the government recognized that the IRGC is a terrorist organization, so it would list it as a terrorist organization in the Immigration Act, instead of listing it in the Criminal Code. If the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledges that the IRGC is a terrorist organization, then why can we not list it as a terrorist organization in the Criminal Code?
All I can conclude from this is that the government wants to intentionally create some ambiguity. It says that it is listing the IRGC in the Immigration Act, instead of listing it as a terrorist organization in the Criminal Code, which is precisely what the Liberals voted to do four years ago, yet they have failed to act on that.
Is the government going to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization? Can we get a clear answer? If it acknowledges that it is a terrorist organization but refuses to list it, could the government finally explain to us why. What is its position on listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and why?
652 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 7:00:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that now is not the time for half measures. The Deputy Prime Minister said that this is a terrorist organization. We have, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, a terrorist listing regime in Canada, and the government has persistently refused to use that terrorist listing regime to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
The question is, why? Why acknowledge the reality that this is a terrorist organization and then refuse to bring in measures that the government itself voted for? The parliamentary secretary cites actions taken by the previous Conservative government, such as the listing of the Quds Force, and she says they have maintained the listing. Bravo. They did not unlist organizations that had been previously listed.
The House voted in 2018 to list the IRGC in its entirety. That was before the downing of flight PS752. That was before the murder of Mahsa Amini, and it was before the recent protest movements. Could the parliamentary secretary clearly tell us when the government will end the half measures and list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as it voted to do, recognizing what the Deputy Prime Minister has already said?
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
