44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/31/22 2:23:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to a Nanos poll for Bloomberg, the largest share of Canadians in recorded history say they are worse off than a year ago. What did the NDP do as a solution to that? It voted to raise home heating bills. Yes, the NDP, along with its costly coalition partners in the Liberal Party, voted twice to make home heating more expensive by tripling the carbon tax.
The Liberals understand that the purpose of the carbon tax is to make home heating more expensive. Will the Liberals tell the NDP that it is, in fact, the plan?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:24:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is not a climate plan. It is a tax plan. The Liberals have not hit a single climate change target since they took office, and now they want to not double down, but triple down on their failure by tripling the carbon tax as we go into winter.
When analysts expect that heating costs will go up more than 100% for families in the member's riding who heat their homes with oil, will the costly coalition, including the NDP, finally reverse itself so Canadians can keep the heat on?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 4:12:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am actually quite surprised to hear the Liberals keep promoting a price on pollution or carbon tax, because clearly it is failing. If we take a look at the graph, the number keeps going up. The government fails to meet one target after another after another. Now it is going to triple the carbon tax. Is this finally what is going to break the back? Unfortunately it is going to break the backs of many Canadians who need to rely on energy just to live in this large and northern climate.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:26:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member said the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of Bill S-5 because it has nothing to do with the carbon tax, yet the member spent a great deal of his time talking about the price on pollution, the carbon tax. There could be a bit of hypocrisy coming from the official opposition.
If we think about it, with 338 candidates, part of the Conservative election platform was to support a price on pollution, a carbon tax. When the new Conservative leader was chosen, they flip-flopped on it and said the carbon tax or a price on pollution is a really bad thing. However, the price on pollution only applies to provinces that do not already have a price on pollution.
Would the member stand in his place and criticize those provinces that have a price on pollution? Would he say that they should get rid of that price on pollution, or is this standard or a new principle just on the federal backstop plan?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:31:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today and to speak to Bill S-5. Members may be aware that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since the 1990s. However, my colleagues have pointed out that it is more of a bureaucratic modernization effort than it is an environmental bill. Nonetheless, we as Conservatives, as my colleague just mentioned, will indeed support it.
Certainly, there is a lot of ambiguity within the bill as it would do many things, including recognize that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and require the Government of Canada to protect this right. This right is not defined in the act. However, this right may be balanced with social, economic, health, scientific and other relevant factors, and it would require that the minister develop, within two years, an implementation framework on how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we have seen ambiguity from the government. Certainly what comes to mind at this moment is to highlight the failures of the current Liberal government on the environment in particular. I will start with the fact that the Liberal government has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target in all of its years in government. We saw the Liberals do this again in March, when they said they were going to slash emissions by 40% by 2030. They once again released an ambitious climate plan with far-reaching emissions reduction goals, yet to this date they have not met a single reduction target.
Therefore, the Liberals' plan in March answered the question of what the Liberals do when they miss their climate targets. They simply make up new ones. The Liberal government's reaction to each failed target is simply to increase them and to talk louder, as we have heard from a previous minister: If they say it loud enough and often enough, people will totally believe it.
Bigger targets do not mean action and stronger rhetoric does not get results. The Liberal plan will have devastating effects on Canada's oil and gas sector under the guise of increased stringency, which includes a capped production. This confirms the Prime Minister's pledge to phase out Canada's energy sector. As an Albertan, this is nothing new to me.
Canada has what the world needs. When Europe needs ethical energy, the Prime Minister is effectively making sure that Canada will not or cannot meet these demands. The Liberal government is spelling the end for Canada's environmentally and socially responsible energy sector, and it is in fact surrendering the global market to oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela who do not have the same care as we do in Canada for both human rights as well as the carbon footprint. Canada's world-class energy should be taking up more space in the market to keep out producers with lower standards, but the Liberal government has failed to recognize this. Under the Prime Minister, Canada will continue to sit on the sidelines and lose tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to countries who do not share our values on the environment, human rights or freedom.
I will also make it clear that carbon emissions have gone up under the current government. Between 1990 and 2020, Canada's GHG emissions actually increased by 13.1% or 78 megatonnes. That is a significant increase under the current Liberal government. That certainly has to be pointed out.
As well, I will speak to the carbon tax, which we do, as Conservatives, because we want to realistically evaluate this. The carbon tax is an absolute failure. It has not reduced emissions, as I just pointed out in my last statistic. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in taxes than they get back in rebates. Again, we see the government tax and tax. In fact, when we look at the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we see that when the economic source impact is combined with the fiscal use impact, “the net carbon cost increases for all households, reflecting the overall negative economic impact of the federal carbon levy under the government's [healthy environment and a healthy economy] plan”.
The report states:
Indeed, most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan in 2030-31. That is, their overall costs—which now include the federal levy and GST paid (fiscal impact) and lower employment and investment income (economic impact)—exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.
The government talks a lot about this rebate, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has come out and said that all the Liberals are doing inflicts more pain on Canadians than the good they are claiming they are doing. We are seeing in that report that even with the rebate they claim is helping Canadians, this is not the case.
In fact, in 2022 the commissioner of the environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government's protection of the environment, and more than half of these reports showed the government was failing to meet its targets, as I indicated before. A March 28 article from CBC News states, “Canada has had nine climate plans since 1990 and has failed to hit any of the targets in them.” It has not met a single target out of nine plans.
The article continues, “Jerry V. DeMarco said Canada has been the worst performer among G7 nations on climate targets since the landmark Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015.” I will add that the Conservatives supported it, in good faith, back in 2017.
Here is an interesting quote. The article goes on, stating that a climate plan “is a lot like a household budget, in that if one doesn't pay attention to the details, one won't achieve one's goals. 'You need a plan. You need to break it all out—what are my expenses, what do I need to achieve. And without that, you are obviously not going to stay within your budget.'”
Who said that? It was not a Conservative. Julia Croome of Ecojustice said that. Even Ecojustice, an organization that Conservatives would not usually bring up, is saying the government has failed on its climate targets, like so many things we have seen, most recently of course with inflation and the cost of living.
We are all very concerned on this side about what the fall economic statement will bring on Thursday, despite our leader's asking to stop the taxes and to stop the spending, but we have seen it is often a lack of planning that has led to this.
I will tell the House who has done their part. Industry has done its part, despite the government's demand to ask more and more of it. Enbridge has a plan to eliminate GHG emissions from its business on a net basis by 2050 and reduce the intensity of GHG emissions from its operations by 35% by 2030.
Cenovus is going to reduce absolute GHG emissions by 35% by year end 2035 as it builds toward its long-term ambitions for net-zero emissions by 2050, through methane reductions, carbon capture and storage, and other decarbonization, which is something of great interest to our leader.
As well, Imperial is a founding member of the Oil Sands Pathways to Net Zero Alliance, as well as determining transformational technology solutions.
The government is marred in ambiguity, and while this bill is necessary, it also is marred in ambiguity. As we have seen from the lawyer from Ecojustice, if one fails to plan, one plans on failing. While we will support this bill, let us clear up the ambiguity, not only with Bill S-5 but in government as well.
1347 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 4:59:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I know the member spoke a bit to the bill and also talked about the carbon tax. My concern when it comes to the carbon tax is that all parties, everybody who is sitting in the House, ran on a platform to put a price on carbon. That is unequivocal. That is what happened. People voted for everybody to be here to deliver that.
My bigger concern is that we get here and then parliamentarians, even from British Columbia, think they can remove the carbon tax, when in my home province the carbon tax is a provincial jurisdiction. It was brought into my province by the right-wing B.C. Liberals and was supported by all parties.
Does my colleague understand that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the provincial carbon tax in British Columbia?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 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 5:43:57 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 5:44:51 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:02:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, because she is laying out the problem here. Right now, the world does not have the tools it needs to address the issues of food insecurity due to a lack of carbon energy production, particularly in light of the situation in Europe right now as well as those long-term substitute goods.
What the member is addressing is the issue of the price inelasticity of carbon. This is something I have been talking about in here for 10 years. We can tax and we can make the price as high as possible, but if it is a critical good that humanity relies upon to exist, if we do not have it we will get civil unrest, starvation, riots and more.
We are down that path. We need to ensure that energy security and substitute goods are an emergent, number one priority for any conversation on climate policy. I really encourage colleagues within their own caucuses, as we are approaching Canada's trip to the Conference of the Parties, to be talking about how Canada should be putting energy security at the front of its climate policy.
192 words
All Topics
- 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
- Oct/31/22 6:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for raising the carbon tax during this debate and giving me the opportunity to respond. I really appreciate it, because when he talks about 80 euros over in Europe and only $50 here, it gives me the perfect opportunity to remind the Liberal benches and the NDP that they are going to triple the carbon tax in the coming years to $170.
It gives me the opportunity to raise the Parliamentary Budget Officer report that says, “most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing” and household costs “exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.”
It gives me the opportunity to remind the Liberal government that, on every single environmental target and promise it has made when it comes to emissions reduction, it has failed. All it is doing is raising the cost of living on people at a time when they need it the least.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:19:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, for hours, days and even weeks now, I have been hearing my Conservative colleagues talk about the carbon tax and how the oil companies are going to pass the tax on to consumers.
I might have a suggestion, and I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. We could enshrine an obligation in the act to ensure that the carbon tax is paid directly out of the oil companies' profits and not passed on to consumers. I think the oil companies can well afford it, considering their record profits.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:19:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I will respectfully completely disagree with the premise and principle of what the Bloc is saying. At the end of the day, it is using the carbon tax as a tax to add to the price of doing business, whether it be in the oil and gas sector or any other sector.
What we have seen is the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green Party support carbon taxes over the course of the last several years. We have not seen emissions go down in any meaningful way in the right direction. What we have seen is the cost of living, groceries and home heating rise and a cost of living crisis in this country. When we talk about emissions reductions, we are talking about that coming from technology, carbon capture and storage, small nuclear modular reactors and so forth, which can be in our energy sector. That is a good way to keep the cost of living down and keep our emissions down as well.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
