SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 121 - Oct/31/22

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Oct/31/22 5:12:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the hon. member represents the riding next to mine, Provencher. I am from Winnipeg South. I just want to know if the hon. member recalls that it was Stephen Harper who added CO2 to schedule 1 of CEPA, the gas that is primarily responsible for climate change. Given that his riding is next to mine, I know that the Red River flooded this year and half of his riding was underwater. It had the worst drought in 70 years last year and had the wettest year on record this year. Does the member believe climate change is real, that it should be a major focus of the House and that we need to use all the tools in our tool box to combat it?

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Ted Falk

Oct/31/22 5:13:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is true what my colleague said. His riding is adjacent to mine. When he needs good employees he knows where to cherry-pick them. That is not lost on me either. With regard to his question, he did note that half of my riding flooded. I would say that is a gross exaggeration of what actually happened. The Red River did flood again last year, but I am surprised how often these one-in-100-year floods actually happen. Do we recognize that there is climate change? There has always been climate change and there will always continue to be climate change. However, I think there are questions we do not address in the House: What part of climate change do we as humans impact? Do we impact it at all, or is it because of forces outside of our control?

144 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/31/22 5:14:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, one of the things Bill S‑5 sets out to amend and improve is the list of toxic substances. I think that is important. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that, especially since the goal, at the end of the day, is to ensure a healthier environment in which people, and especially businesses, stop polluting the air, as is the case in Rouyn‑Noranda and in my riding. That will reduce the number of lawsuits against these companies, as well as against the government if it turns a blind eye.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Ted Falk

Oct/31/22 5:15:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I think an important part of this bill looks at the list of toxins that need to be examined. These things are very important. However, we need to make sure the toxins on the list of banned substances are there for a reason. The study needs to be done and the science needs to be researched. I am troubled a bit by the part of the bill that says any person at any time can demand that the Government of Canada examine any substance for toxicity. That is one thing that is too ambiguous. We are going to end up with a whole bunch of lawsuits, as the member alluded to. It is probably frivolous work for the government, and I think it needs to be more pointed and more direct. Are we against toxins polluting our environment? Absolutely, we are.

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/31/22 5:16:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, everybody ran on a platform to put a price on carbon in the last election. My colleague asked a very clear question: Does the member believe that humans are exacerbating the warming of the planet and causing climate change and the impacts of climate change? We know his party voted that climate change is not real and is not caused by human impacts. I am hoping we can get a really clear answer from my colleague on that question and where the Conservatives truly are.

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Ted Falk

Oct/31/22 5:16:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, what I can say is actual fact. We believe there is climate change. We have always stood behind climate change. We need to do what we can, whatever our areas of responsibility are, to meet any negative impacts that the climate may be experiencing as a result of our activities. What I am against is the dumping of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. I am against making a promise to plant two billion trees and not delivering on that, leaving it up to the forestry industry. For every tree they harvest they plant three. Why is it up to industry to fulfill government promises? That is more of a concern to me.

116 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

Oct/31/22 5:17:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the bill we have in front of us today, Bill S-5, has to do with environmental protection. It has to do with updating important documentation having to do with how we define toxins, which is long overdue. We know that; it has been mentioned here in the House before. It has been true since the 1990s. Unfortunately, though, the government across the way will claim that it wants to get the bill through quickly and that the Conservatives are stalling it, when the fact of the matter is that the Liberals have had five years to work on legislation and get it through the House. They have not taken that seriously. They have been slow. Further to that, in the middle of those five years there were several elections, one of them called completely unnecessarily. Of course, that was in the fall of 2021 in the middle of a pandemic, when individuals were concerned for their health, safety and well-being. Interestingly enough, part of the bill has to do with health, which I will get to in just a moment, yet the Liberals decided that would be a good time to call an election. Of course, elections have a way of stalling things. They have a way of putting aside legislation and making it so that it is no longer standing. It has to be called back once Parliament resumes, so here we are talking about Bill S-5. Again, it is something that has been in process for about five years. It did not need to be that way, but it was. Nevertheless, let us jump into the bill and discuss it. There are a couple of things I want to draw attention to. Certainly there would be some new definitions brought about through this legislation, and I think overall my colleagues and I can agree to that. We see where there is some simplification achieved and we can get behind it. That said, there were many amendments made in the Senate before the bill came this way, which is the opposite of how things normally work, and we have some issues with those amendments. We will be looking to create some change around them to make sure Canadians are better advocated for going forward, but of course that will come at a later stage. For today, I wish to speak to a part in the preamble of the bill. The preamble of the bill says that it is committed to prioritizing a healthy environment and that this is a right Canadians should have guaranteed for them. Here is the thing. First off, instead of putting this in the preamble, it should have been in the body of the legislation if it is going to have teeth, because we know that when it comes to courts of law, a judge does not make a decision based on a preamble; a judge makes a decision based on what is in the actual bill. If the current government is looking to truly be held accountable in making sure Canadians enjoy a healthy environment, it should have the courage to put this into the main component of the bill rather than in the preamble. Putting it in the preamble is simply another nicety, another platitude. Speaking of that, we already have many examples. Let us look at the carbon tax, for example. With the carbon tax, there is a lot of fluffy language with regard to how the it is somehow making a difference or will make a difference, yet when we look at the actual facts, we see carbon emissions have not been reduced in our country. Actually, they have increased, so we have to ask this question: Why is there a carbon tax? We do not know, yet it continues to be in place. In fact, it is not just to be maintained but is actually increasing year over year every single April 1. That is April Fool's Day, but no one is really laughing because it is expensive to pay the carbon tax. Canadians are reasonable people, and I think they can get behind something, even if it penalizes them a bit, if they know it is going to make a measurable or meaningful difference for them. However, the fact of the matter is that we have a report from the commissioner of the environment that says the current government has been given a failing grade on its environmental goals or objectives. It has not met any of them. This is coming out of reports that are at arm's length. I did not make this up. Here is the government using platitudes, niceties and language that appears to do something but actually does nothing. Therefore, here we are again. We have this piece of legislation and in the preamble is this commitment to a healthy environment. However, the courage is lacking to give it teeth and to ensure that it happens. Let us talk about that. If we were to truly define this vague term “healthy environment”, what might that look like in Canada? What might Canadians be able to anticipate if we were to create a healthy environment? Perhaps it would mean that we take a look not only at the thing but also at the context. For example, with plastics, those opposite me would like to put out language, and have put out language, that demonizes plastics. However, to consider plastics in context, let us look at plastics in the way that they were used during the pandemic. During the pandemic, they were used to cover instruments in hospitals. Today they are used to cover instruments in hospitals. They are used for equipment in hospitals. They are used in daily practice to ensure that people are kept healthy. In a hospital are they toxic? Further, during the pandemic when people were given plastic forks or plastic spoons because they could not eat in a restaurant but still needed to consume food, was that toxic? Perhaps it is, but maybe there needs to be a further conversation around context. Perhaps it is not adequate to demonize something altogether without considering time and place. Furthermore, let us talk about a healthy environment and LNG or liquefied natural gas. Let us talk about, if we were to move entirely over to LNG and off of coal, the incredible difference it would make in terms of creating a healthy, vibrant Canada. However, the members opposite do not want to talk about that because to them oil and gas is bad. We would rather turn a blind eye to the truth that we continue to use coal because to talk about that is inconvenient. We do not want to talk about that. We want to talk about all this greenism over here, all these plans over here and all this nice language that we have over here. Look over here at the shiny item. However, we do not actually want to acknowledge the truth, which is to say we have something incredible called LNG. We could use it to get off coal, clean up the environment and contribute to health. Here is another one. The government wants to impose a carbon tax and it is tripling by 2030. That will have a huge impact on Canadians. The government has said that this is going to make a meaningful difference. We have already discovered that it has not and it will not. Meanwhile, if we were to develop oil and gas in our country, to get pipelines into the ground and to get product to market, that would be a huge help in creating a healthy environment. Do members want to know how? The growing demand would then be met domestically, rather than having to bring it in from Saudi Arabia or Russia. Let us talk about Saudi Arabia or Russia for a moment. There are no environmental standards. There are no human rights standards. Instead, the current government is deciding to ship in blood oil because the demand for fossil fuels is not going anywhere. It only continues to grow. Is that contributing to a healthy environment? We will just bring all the blood oil over from Saudi Arabia. Let us continue to fund Putin and his war machine against Ukraine. Is that a healthy environment? I look forward to the government giving a definition to what it means by the right to a healthy environment. It certainly should be a lot broader than the niceties or the platitudes that it uses to describe its carbon tax.

1433 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

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

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:28:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I do love the number zero. Let us talk about the accomplishments in terms of protecting the environment in Canada. It is zero. Let us talk about the units of carbon that have been reduced in terms of emissions because of the Liberals' carbon tax. Wait, that number is zero as well. Shall I continue? I like the number zero as well. The point is that the current policies that are being implemented by the government do not help to create a healthy environment for Canadians. Instead, they are punitive in nature. Canadians are paying through the roof. They are struggling. They deserve better.

106 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Oct/31/22 5:29:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about emissions reductions. However, I am still reeling from the fact that the Conservative colleague who spoke before her called into question whether humans are responsible for climate change. The science on the human contribution to modern global warming is clear. According to the world's top scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human emissions and activities have caused the vast majority of the warming observed since 1950. Does the member stand with her Conservative colleague who questions whether human-caused climate change is real, or will she clearly condemn the anti-science rhetoric from her colleague?

104 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:29:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the conversation in the House today has to do with what the government is doing concerning the environment— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

26 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/31/22 5:29:55 p.m.
Watch

Could we give the hon. member the opportunity to answer the question that was asked? The hon. member for Lethbridge.

20 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/31/22 5:30:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, today, I feel there is a degree of consensus around adopting this bill and referring it to a committee to make some amendments. We all understand the importance of modernizing this act, which is the same age as my daughter, 23 years old. It is not old, but it has not been updated in 23 years. Can my colleague give us one example of an amendment that she would make to improve the bill, not tie it up in committee?

82 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:30:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

I am good.

3 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:30:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, basically, the entirety of my speech talked about the provision in the preamble around guaranteeing Canadians the right to a healthy environment. It is in the preamble, which indicates that the government lacks the courage to put it in the bill and be held accountable for that. Perhaps we could start there when it comes to amending this bill.

61 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/31/22 5:31:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I noted that the hon. member did address an important point with which I agree, which is that the right to a healthy environment must be a real right, an enforceable right, which would mean that the government has to open up section 22 of the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act. However, I noted her reference to blood oil. The Green Party agrees that we should cancel all imports of oil from any foreign countries and only use Canadian oil, but there is a surprisingly small component of Saudi Arabian oil coming to Canada. All of it goes to the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. I wonder if the hon. member might want to comment on what could be done to get the worst and most human rights violating nations out of Canada's energy streams.

140 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:32:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I believe that if we are serious about wanting to make sure that we are taking care of our health as Canadians but also the health of world, which should be at least, in part, our endeavour, then we do need to consider our sources pertaining to oil and gas. When we bring in, from countries that do not have high environmental standards or do not treat people with the utmost respect for human rights, then we are actually functioning in an unethical manner ourselves. We have an opportunity to correct that by—

96 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/31/22 5:32:45 p.m.
Watch

Resuming date, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

11 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

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

Mr. Charlie Angus

Oct/31/22 5:41:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not making fun of his cough. I thought the cough was the best part of his speech.

26 words