44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2022 11:00AM
- Oct/31/22 12:11:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I think the member highlights an important point. I have said often that the only thing the Liberals are good at is politics. They have shown time and time again that they are failures when it comes to policy, implementation and ultimately governing this country.
When it comes to their record on the environment, it is deplorable. They have never met a target. They have missed virtually every emissions target they have ever implemented. They have a tax plan, not an environment plan, and are quick to demonize anybody who points out the facts in this regard.
Canadians should have the right to a healthy environment, but that includes being able to ensure we have an industry and technology that allow for that to not only be the case here in Canada. Canada can and should be a leader in the world when it comes to ensuring that the entire planet has the tools, resources and ability to have a healthy environment.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:24:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, as an MP from Alberta and as an Albertan, I would say that we have environmental regulations governing the largest industrial companies operating the biggest projects in our province. When it comes to legislating and regulating our province's biggest corporations, we are leading the way.
The rest of Canada could follow our lead on things like ethane and methane. For large industrial projects, we have very strict rules governing gas emissions. We have also had a price on greenhouse gas production for a very long time for our province's major oil industry producers.
Anyone can come to our province and ask us questions. Our public servants are excellent; their excellence is world-renowned. All this information is available online, and I encourage the member to come to Alberta and see it for herself if she wants.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:42:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague with whom I sat on committee in the last Parliament. He always has some excellent input into the manner in which we need to move legislation forward.
Let me say that this whole issue around a clean and healthy environment is a great concept, and I fully subscribe to it. At the same time, I look at this nonsense that I hear in the House from members in the House, and not the member in question here, and I need to make sure that we have clarity on what we are trying to accomplish. I have heard many times, at committee and in the House, about how emissions from oil and gas, for instance, are actually limiting people's lifespans. However, when we look at the increasing lifespan of Canadians, it is significant.
We have actually done very well with the lower cost of energy and lower emissions in this country. I want to make sure we continue on that, and that as Canadians' lifespans continue to increase we get better and expect more from our legislation around how we treat Canadians. That is what I am after here.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 12:44:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise on Bill S-5.
Five years ago, at the environment committee, as a parliamentary staffer, I took part in the extensive review that took place, I believe, in 2017. Indeed, the committee members at the time looked at the whole scope of this legislation, and I hope to provide some insight from my time on that committee during my remarks today.
While I am in support of Bill S-5 in the fact that it deals with the right to a healthy environment and some of the critical issues included in CEPA 1999, I would be remiss if I did not mention a juxtaposition of things happening in British Columbia at the moment.
Right now, we have a government that is purportedly concerned about the impacts of toxic substances on our lives, on our health and on the health of infants most importantly. Just yesterday I went to IKEA with my family and bought some new furniture. I know that furniture is subject to many of the schedule 1 toxic substances list, and those toxic chemicals are applied in the production and manufacturing of almost all consumer goods that we use in Canada. At the same time, though, the government has decided this year to decriminalize the use of fentanyl, which is killing hundreds, if not thousands of people every single year in my province.
Why do we care so much, on the one hand, about the application of CEPA 1999 and amending it to keep our communities safe from toxic substances, when at the same time the Government of Canada is effectively legalizing the use of a toxic substance that is killing people every day on the streets of Vancouver and throughout British Columbia?
Earlier in the debate today, a number of people spoke to the fact that the bill before us today does not address the full scope of changes that are needed to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I would generally agree with this assumption and the concern put forward by members on all sides of the House. For example, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is complicated legislation, overlaps and works in conjunction with other pieces of legislation that determine how we use products and substances in our day-to-day life, one example being the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In the last number of years, we have seen a huge influx of electric vehicles coming into the marketplace. I think it would benefit consumers in Canada if we had updated standards on the use of the batteries, for example, that are used in these cars, and the impact it could have on the environment when they reach the end of their life cycle and have to be recycled.
Another example of things we could have been discussing is living organisms or biotechnology. I know many of my constituents are concerned about genetically modified organisms. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the law that deals with such substances. We have not seen a major update despite major advancements in the technology regarding the products, food and even vaccines that we might ingest into our bodies that could be impacted by such provisions.
A big one is preventing water pollution from nutrients. One of the things the Department of Environment and Climate Change wanted to see addressed in 2016, when we went through the review, was the labelling of products such as bleach or other household goods that we use on a regular basis. We need to know the impact those products have when we put them down the drain, and what might happen off the coast of Victoria, for example, when they are dumped directly into the ocean. We need our Canadian Environmental Protection Act to be updated to know what we are putting into the ocean and the impact it has on marine life, especially in British Columbia.
As other members have mentioned, Bill S-5 does nothing to address marine pollution. I would be remiss if I did not ask why the government would not address that, because it is in the process of hiring hundreds of new people to work at Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada on a marine protection plan for the Pacific coast. How in the world could it not update CEPA to work in conjunction with the billions of dollars it is purportedly spending on protecting B.C.'s coasts? It has the opportunity right here in the House of Commons.
Another big thing we could have done to address the environment is related to preventing pollution from the transboundary movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. One of my colleagues from Simcoe, the secondary breadbasket of Canada, put forward a bill to try to update some aspects of CEPA as it relates to recycled goods. We have so many goods on which we could a better job of making sure they are dealt with in a respectful way.
We also need to be very careful, and CEPA could be doing this, to look at the importation of goods and whether they meet Canadian standards. An updated CEPA could give consumers more confidence in the products they are using if the government had the courage to do the hard work of updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
Another key aspect of CEPA that could have been addressed is preventing and responding to emergencies. This is particularly important to the people of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. One of the provisions that Environment and Climate Change Canada asked for in the last review in 2017 was to allow for field research related to environmental emergencies, and for exemptions for urgent, time-sensitive issues of national security and remedial provisions. This was really relevant to my riding when it had to replace so many culverts as it related to fish-bearing streams. There were so many applications to our environmental laws in the context of an emergency that could have been addressed if the government wanted to do the hard work.
Another area the government could have addressed, which is probably the fifth or sixth already, is environmental protection related to federal activities on aboriginal lands. Aboriginal lands and reserves, in many cases, are not subject to provincial environmental laws, and we do not know about the application of federal laws or the overlay of the two jurisdictions. We could have used this opportunity in respect of UNDRIP. Instead of just talking about UNDRIP, we could have taken the concrete administrative step of improving the application of environmental laws or their administration in the context of aboriginal lands.
Another area we could have looked at is strengthening the enforcement of CEPA. Since the review that took place in 2017, the Government of Canada went through a major process with Volkswagen Canada. Volkswagen was not following the laws in Canada related to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and was not reporting on the emissions from certain vehicles. In the United States, there were billions of dollars in lawsuits after this. In Canada, our enforcement of environmental laws is much weaker. We could have used this opportunity to strengthen the enforcement of environmental protection in Canada.
Another area we could have looked at that I briefly touched upon is facilitating intergovernmental co-operation. We have a large bureaucracy in Canada. There is lots of red tape. There is overlapping jurisdiction and there are overlapping laws. Updating CEPA could have clarified how federal, provincial and territorial laws work in the context of equivalency in the administration of environmental protection in Canada.
We could have looked very closely at encouraging public participation, moving administrative barriers to allow more citizens to participate and bring petitions forward to the minister of environment, which is a very key aspect of the bill on issues of concern. We could have clarified how that would work in the Canadian context.
Finally, the preamble in Bill S-5 talks extensively about protecting the right to a healthy environment. Unfortunately, the government seems to punt all the hard work down the road. Why did it not clarify the legal definition of “a right to a healthy environment” instead of giving our public servants two years to determine the definition? We have a responsibility in committee and in this chamber to do that hard work now, not leave it for down the road. It is a failure of the government not to define “a right to a healthy environment” instead of just punting it down the road.
I could go on. I am quite dismayed that the Government of Canada did not do the hard work that many of its members put forward in recommendations. Unfortunately, it is too afraid to do that hard work.
1470 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:38:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her commitment to climate action. I just want to remind her we have the most ambitious climate change plan in the history of Canada: $100 billion invested since 2015; $9.1 billion in the emissions reduction plan.
It is an ambitious sector-by-sector pathway to get to our 2030 targets on our way to net zero by 2050. It has broad support from environmental groups, industry and farmers in Quebec and across the country.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:45:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know two things for certain: oil and gas emissions must come down, and energy companies are making record profits. Like us, energy companies must put their shoulder to the wheel and begin investing in pollution reduction.
We need to work together to create the clean economy and the good jobs of today and tomorrow. We will be with them every step of the way as we meet our 2030 targets on our way to net zero by 2050.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 2:46:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member to actually read the emissions reduction plan.
The government has invested over $110 billion in reducing emissions around this country and in making investments to actually grow a clean economy going forward. It is something we have to think about on both sides of the equation. We must reduce emissions, but we also have to think about creating jobs and economic opportunity for the future, and that is exactly what we are doing.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:14:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I happen to have worked in the administration under former prime minister Brian Mulroney. I worked on acid rain and worked on the treaty that protected the ozone layer. I can contrast, from first-hand experience, why the current Liberal government is not hitting targets and Brian Mulroney's government did. At no time did we in that government decide to fight acid rain while subsidizing acid rain. At no time did we say that we must make our other colleagues happy and build, for instance, more pollution into our system while trying to fight it. We cannot meet climate targets doing this.
I know the members opposite think it is important to build pipelines. We must cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline if we have any interest in making sure our emissions go down. We have to be consistent and fight for what our goals are, one of which is to make sure we have a livable world for our kids. That is not hyperbole. That is what the scientists are warning us about.
176 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 4:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, number one, Bill S-5 does not deal with climate, and I recognize a big part of the debate we are having here is on sections of environmental and climate policy that are not in Bill S-5.
It is true the government has never met any target, but neither did the previous government under Stephen Harper, which picked a target in Copenhagen and said it would meet that target. It picked a target in 2006 and said it would meet that target. The Liberals claim they reduced emissions, but it was due to COVID. The Harper administration claimed it reduced emissions, but it was due to the 2008 financial collapse.
We need all the big parties to do all the things the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore has said: Have a plan, make a target and stick to it. In fact, not only have none of the governments in this country ever achieved the target, but they have not gotten the direction right. They are supposed to go down, but emissions go up. That is largely due to governments, one after the other, trying to accommodate Alberta's oil and gas industry and running into opposition.
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 4:59:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for reiterating the fact that the carbon tax is a provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not understand that, which is exactly why they forced the carbon tax on provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Frankly, I was very proud to be an MLA in my home province of Alberta, where we had a tier program. Instead of having just a flat out carbon tax, we had a taxation program that taxed the highest emitters, and we had measurable environmental targets being met because of it. We were working to reduce emissions in our heaviest industries by doing so.
In fact, between 2012 and, I believe, 2021, there was a 23% drop in the intensity of emissions in the oil sands as a direct result of some of the technological advances that were put into place through the tier program. I think every member in the House would be well served to look at Alberta's model of the tier program. It is something I would have very much supported and would love to see implemented on a national scale.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:02:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to Bill S-5, a very important issue that Canadians are seized with today. I have appreciated the speeches and questions by my hon. colleagues today, and after reading the record of the previous legislation being debated in the House, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my voice to the conversation.
Today is Halloween. That seems fitting as so often I read or hear of legislation brought forward by the government, and it is frightening, especially when it starts talking about the environment. I feel afraid because I wonder what new pie-in-the-sky policy or target it is going to propose now.
Some Canadians are afraid because all they have heard from the government over the last two and half years on the environment is always about fear, that they should be afraid, very afraid, because we are all doomed. Others are afraid because they wonder how much it is going to cost. They are justifiably concerned given that the government has already spent somewhere in the region of $100 billion in its effort to fight climate change. Has it been achieved? That is negligible.
We have a carbon tax that is going to be tripled, and it has nothing to do with reducing emissions, but has everything to do with taxation and wealth redistribution. The carbon tax may not be driving down emissions, but it sure is driving up inflation. Add to that the cost of the new clean fuel standard and that will cost Canadian families an additional $1,200 a year in gas costs.
The government's much-touted carbon action incentive payments do not come anywhere near the amounts my constituents in rural Manitoba have to pay to fill their vehicles, nowhere close. Now there is an additional $1,200 coming. Canadians are no closer to a clean environment. They are just poorer.
Thankfully, the Liberals have yet to accomplish banning single-use plastics, given that single-use plastics were somewhat important in fighting COVID the last two and a half years. As my friend, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, noted in his excellent speech on this bill earlier this month, a speech from which I will, conservatively, if not liberally, draw from, 93% of plastics that wind up in our oceans today come from 10 rivers, none of which are located in Canada. It also takes nearly four times as much CO2 to make a paper straw as a plastic straw.
That and the whole saving trees thing, had the government managed managed to get a few of the two billion trees it promised to plant, may not have been a big issue. However, that is always the modus operandi of the government. They make a big splashy announcement with a nice backdrop and a myriad of ministers nodding solemnly, and something big and symbolic utterly unachievable is supposed to happen. They slap a big price tag on it, which is paid for by the taxpayers, and demonize anyone who dares question the government's plan or judgment.
To put it another way, every time the government does this, it is taking money from Canadians who pay their taxes in good faith expecting some bang for their buck, and they do not get it. It is a like a giant Ponzi scheme, with the government telling Canadians to give it their money, it will invest it for them and here is the amazing unrealistic return they can expect, and they do not get it. Only the people running the Ponzi scheme reap the benefits, while those who invested just get poorer. I will put it another way. Canadian families keep getting tricked while Liberal cronies keep getting all the treats.
Speaking of treats, perhaps the next time the Prime Minister or the finance minister want to talk about how they understand the plight of Canadians who are skipping meals so their kids can eat, the Prime Minister can tell Canadian parents just what a bed in a $7,000-a-night hotel room feels like. I am sure the meals were not that shabby either.
There are also likely to be some pretty nice hotel rooms in Egypt, as the Minister of Environment prepares for his annual pilgrimage of failure to COP27. Let us think about that for a moment. We want to reduce emissions, so let us fly 35,000 people to the Middle East. It is tough to know what will be worse: the emissions from all those private jets or the hot air from the delegates pontificating about how we are all doomed if we do not start eating bugs and insects.
After 27 years of conferences with nothing to show but some photo ops, frequent flyer miles and a noticeable increase in emissions, one would think that maybe Zoom could have been an option. However, that is just not as much fun, is it?
Speaking of fun, as we are having this debate tonight, thousands of kids are going to be out trick-or-treating this evening. We always told our kids to be careful about who they are accepting treats from and what they are receiving, and to have their moms and dads check the candy first and make sure it is safe. In this case, we have a nanny state and a government that wants to parent Canadians. It is the one providing the tricks guised as treats that will harm them in the end.
Perhaps it is a better analogy of what our role is as His Majesty's loyal opposition—
940 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 5:43:04 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
- 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 6:19:47 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
