SoVote

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

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

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/22 5:41:44 p.m.
Watch

As we have only a minute left, I will call on the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

20 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

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

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

Oct/31/22 5:43:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would acknowledge that the April 1 increase on the price on pollution was 2.2¢. The illegal war on Ukraine accounts for 70% of the rise in the cost of gas, and 25% is because of provincial taxes and refining margins. I am a fellow western Canadian. I believe the energy sector is important, not just in western Canada, but for all Canadians. The oil majors have committed to net zero by 2050. They believe in market mechanisms to drive down pollution and reduce emissions. I wonder if the hon. member agrees with them.

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

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

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/31/22 5:44:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of speeches tonight and I am getting the impression that this is an opposition day on the carbon tax. However, we are talking about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I understand that the two are basically related, but I want to circle back to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. At the end of his speech, my colleague mentioned that there are things in the current act that he likes and things that he would like to see changed and improved. I would like him to give us an example of one thing he likes and one thing he would like to see improved.

110 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

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

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Oct/31/22 5:46:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's discussion and points on the price of gasoline. The United States has to release information each week that shows the refining capacity and cost, which it allows consumers to look at. As well, even Donald Trump used the strategic petroleum reserve to try to influence the market to lower the price of gasoline. I wonder whether he thinks that these are basically interventions in the market, or at least positions that we should maybe look at on the Canadian side, especially requiring the information to be released so Canadian consumers can follow the product from the refinery to the pump.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

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

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Oct/31/22 5:48:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity today to address something that this bill does not look at whatsoever and something I do not think the House has addressed in any form of debate yet. I would encourage my colleagues to listen to me because what I am about to present is something this entire place will be seized with for many years to come. What I am worried about this bill failing to address is two things. Number one is that we are seeing global greenhouse gas emissions rise at rapid rates, in spite of global policy that has been considered dogma for the last several years, so we do not have a solution to climate change. This bill does not address that. I am also very worried that some of the failings of the climate policy the world has put forward, particularly the Liberal climate policy, is setting us up toward a potential reset of the geopolitical order away from western democracies and in favour of autocracies. This bill fails to address a question that I really want every person in the House to listen to. What happens if Russia, which is engaged in a barbaric war of aggression against Ukraine, does not ever turn the taps back on to Europe? That is a question that people are not asking themselves right now, and it is a problem. The prevailing wisdom right now in many corners is that, at some point, western sanctions on Russia for its war of aggression against Ukraine is going to break Russia and the ensuing fallout will lead to Russia turning the taps back on to Europe and everything kind of going back to normal. I am very concerned that is not the case and that our environmental policy in Canada is failing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and we are now no longer at the point where we are just talking about the runaway inflation that people are addressing. I am worried about the effect on western democracy. This is not hyperbole, and I would like to briefly lay out my thesis here. The west has made three major errors in its climate policy. Number one, the fact that the committee on party process has never seriously addressed the creation of substitute goods, low-cost, affordable substitutes to high-carbon consumer practices and products, at the same pace that we have increased our reliance on energy from autocratic nations while reducing our own capacity to produce carbon energy is a huge problem. In simple terms, what that means is that the people at the fancy cocktail parties forgot that, if we do not have something to replace something with, we are going to have a massive increase in price and the demand is going to be filled by something or someone. That is critical error number one, that we do not have substitute goods for carbon in a way to address or match what is happening with inflation. Critical error number two is that the western world has just spent an enormous amount of money on the pandemic. We are having a massive parliamentary debate on whether or not that spending was justified. I would think everyone in here agrees that the western world is so in debt that we no longer have resiliency to weather another shock, which means that, at a time when we need to be addressing things like energy security, there is, number one, an unwillingness to step away from the current climate dogma of the current policy on the table, which does not address substitute goods and, number two, we cannot even get countries to talk about how we are going to address the lack of supply that has been precipitated by Russia turning the taps off. The third critical failing in global climate policy is that we fail to understand that the west's paternalistic approach to post-colonial countries has left a dialogue that is ripe for anti-western rhetoric to take root. What do those three things come into nexus on right now? This is where we are. There are three major problems. First of all, we are seeing massive economic disaster in the European Union specifically. I encourage colleagues here today to look at the inflation numbers, particularly out of the European Union. They are grim, and they are frightening. Second, I ask my colleagues to look at the reliance of European countries on Russian gas. In Germany, I believe it is 50% of its utilization that comes from Russia, and there is no replacement for that in sight. Why? It is because our climate policy has been short-sighted and did not say, “Look, while we are trying to find ways to replace that carbon with new technology, we should be ensuring that there is a supply from pro-democratic, western countries.” Now, there is no short- or even medium-term solution for European countries from Canada or even the U.S. to meet that demand, which is a huge problem. That is a reality that is not set into our climate policy. The other problem with this is that there is going to be civil unrest. When people cannot afford to eat or heat their homes, all the stuff we talk about here, and sometimes the theatre that engages in the House of Commons, results in civil unrest. If it does not result in civil unrest, it results in something equally dangerous, which is a ground of people, an electorate, in western countries, in democratic nations, who are open to listening to anti-democratic propaganda from countries that have an economic interest in ensuring that they have that supply. The third thing that is very damaging about this failure in western climate policy is that now, when we are faced with the consequences, not having those substitute goods, not having that pro-democratic, western supply of carbon energy, we are now firing coal plants up again. There are coal-fired electricity plants that are being fired up in western countries with climate policies, because Canada did not produce LNG. In all seriousness, this is what I want my colleagues to ask: What happens if Russia never turns the taps back on? If anybody thinks that is not going to happen, it is already finding new markets in China, India and Myanmar. What happens? We do not have substitute goods, and we are so in debt we do not have the ability now. How is the government going to pay for beefing up our grid infrastructure and all the things we need to do to make actual change in climate policy? We do not have that resilience. We do not even have that resilience to help people through this winter's energy crisis or this winter's food crisis. I want people to think about the long-term fallout of what is going to happen here as we are putting tariffs and restrictions on petroleum fertilizer in Canada. I have talked to Ukrainian MPs who are worried about food production, and not in the short term. They say the Russians are seeding their fields with land mines. This is serious, and the bill does not address any of this stuff. Frankly, our dialogue on climate change, on energy security, is in this theatre between one pole and the other. This government is in power right now, and it has a responsibility and a moral duty to answer the questions: We are in dire straits; what are we going to do? What happens if Russia does not turn the taps back on? We do not have an answer for that right now.

1284 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

Oct/31/22 5:57:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I am profoundly sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, because it is an important speech, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Bill S-5. Bill S-5 deals with toxic chemicals, and with six different parts, none touch on carbon pricing; none are about Russia, Ukraine or climate. Bill S-5 is a different bill altogether. This is an important speech, but there is no relevance to Bill S-5.

84 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/22 5:57:29 p.m.
Watch

Well, knowing that we have only about 50 seconds left in the speech, I would ask the member to maybe wrap things up in view of the bill before us. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

37 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Oct/31/22 5:57:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I could not have asked for a greater proof point than what the leader of the Green Party of Canada just gave to my argument. Environmental policy is so out of touch; it is so far from being moored in the reality of actually achieving results while ensuring that western democratic values are protected that this is the type of comment we get. The fact that we are debating the bill today—

75 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Oct/31/22 5:58:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry but Bill S-5 is not a sign of irrelevance for all climate policy. It happens to be the bill we are debating now.

34 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/31/22 5:58:30 p.m.
Watch

I believe we are descending into debate. For the sake of 30 seconds left in the speech, maybe we will let the member finish her speech and then we will take questions and comments. I am sure there will be a lot of great comments and a lot of great answers.

51 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Oct/31/22 5:58:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Again, Mr. Speaker, that is the point. We are here spending time in debate on something that does not even come close to addressing the greatest environmental challenge and the greatest threat to the global geopolitical order in recent history. This is not a joke. This is not about points of order and whatever. This is about a call to action for every person in this place to understand that our failure on this issue means autocracies benefit. We have to get this right.

84 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Oct/31/22 5:59:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I agree that my hon. colleague's speech is not necessarily tied into Bill S-5, but all of it is extremely important. Bill S-5 is important, and all the comments my colleague has made are issues that we all have to be paying much more attention to than we have so far. Certainly, at various committees, work is being done. I encourage the hon. member and I know how sincere she is with her concerns that at the committee level we will continue to work through some of these issues. However, I share concern on much of what she said about where we are going and whether we have enough time to get where we need to get with the concerns she has raised today.

129 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Oct/31/22 6:00:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough. I get where my colleague is coming from, but she is a member of the governing party. As a member of the governing party, she has influence and stature within her caucus to say that the pressure the world is under right now because of our inability to have a stable source of carbon energy at this juncture in history could actually contribute to not just massive civil unrest due to inflationary pressures but also a reset of the geopolitical order. I encourage her to use her voice within her caucus and up the food chain to persuade the government to make a difference and change its policy.

115 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Oct/31/22 6:01:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, with whom I recently had the pleasure of attending the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Kigali. She and I met with the same Ukrainian elected representatives and observed the same geopolitical issues and the rise of a kind of autocracy and anti-West movements. I want to go back to Bill S‑5 because it is crucial. We know that international conflicts, food insecurity and climate change are connected, and we know they will exacerbate global hunger issues. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about farmers. Farmers really want to be part of the solution to develop better food resilience and be supported through this transition. This is crucial, and it is related to what we are talking about in Bill S‑5 because it has to do with the traceability of what we eat and the safety of the products we ingest.

166 words

All Topics