SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 282 - Feb/14/24

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/14/24 7:34:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I rose to press the Prime Minister on placing an embargo on military exports to Israel, and tonight I rise again, as the situation has only become more dire. Let me restate where we are. Since October 7, over 28,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including at least 10,000 children. As the siege has continued, back in January the International Court of Justice published a decision calling on the state of Israel to take six steps to prevent genocide in its siege on Gaza. Canada is a signatory to the genocide convention, so we are bound by this ICJ decision. In the meantime, Canada has continued to export military equipment to the state of Israel. When I first asked the question, I shared that in the most recent year we have records for, 2022, Canada permitted sales of more than $20 million of military equipment to Israel, which followed a record high of $26 million in 2021. In the time since, an access to information and privacy request by The Maple to Global Affairs has revealed that the government authorized at least $28.5 million of new permits for military exports to Israel during the first two months of this siege on Gaza. Various ministers have denied in the media that this is the case, so I wonder if it might be the wording they are speaking about. As an example, Israel has used F-35 fighter jets in its bombing of Gaza, and Project Ploughshares, on January 18, warned that some Canadian-made military components, including those found in F-35s, are first shipped to the U.S. and then ultimately supplied to the Israeli military. They are destined for Israel all the same, even if it is through other countries. Now, we have our own laws that forbid these permits. Section 7.3 of our own Export and Import Permits Act forbids these sales if there is a substantial risk they could be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights law, or for serious acts of violence against women and children. In light of this, last month a coalition of legal advocates warned that it may bring a legal challenge against the federal government if it fails to halt military sales to Israel. Last week, a coalition of civil society organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Mennonite Central Committee Canada and The United Church of Canada, called on the government to stop military exports to Israel, warning, “There is substantial concern that some of these weapons could be enabling Israel’s operation in Gaza.” As we speak tonight, Netanyahu has vowed an offensive in Rafah, the last refuge for displaced Palestinians in southern Gaza. A WHO representative for Gaza and the West Bank said an assault on Rafah would be “an unfathomable catastrophe…and would even further expand the humanitarian disaster beyond imagination”. In the midst of all this, Canada must be clear. Greens have called for the government to unequivocally call for a lasting ceasefire, for a release of all hostages, for funding to be renewed to UNRWA and for an end to all permitting of military equipment destined for Israel. I ask again tonight, at a time when we know Canada has permitted more than $28 million of military equipment destined for Israel in recent months, when the ICJ has ordered Israel to take steps to prevent genocide and when our own laws forbids these sales if the equipment could be used to break international law, will the government put in place an embargo on military exports destined for Israel?

612 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.)

Feb/14/24 7:38:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the violence must stop. We share an immense grief for the tragic loss of civilian life. The horrific attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilians still shock us all. Canada unequivocally condemns its terrorist actions. What has been happening in Gaza is absolutely dire. The images we are now seeing from Rafah are deeply concerning, and a military operation in Rafah is devastating for Palestinian civilians, as well as foreign nationals, who are seeking refuge. They have nowhere else to go and, as the minister has said, asking them to move again is unacceptable. We have also said that the price of defeating Hamas cannot be the continued suffering of all Palestinian civilians. We continue to support the urgent efforts for a sustainable ceasefire. This cannot be one-sided. Hamas must release all hostages and lay down its arms, and humanitarian access must urgently be increased and sustained. I also want to reassure all Canadians that we are in regular and close contact with our allies and partners in the region, including Israel, Egypt and Qatar. In fact, today Canada welcomes His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan. During the visit, peace and security in the Middle East will be an important topic of discussion, including the urgent delivery of rapid, unimpeded humanitarian relief for civilians in Gaza, support for a sustainable ceasefire and the path toward lasting peace in the region. Canada continues to believe in a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace and security. When it comes to the ICJ, Canada was a founding voice, and it remains a strong proponent of the court's independence. We support its critical role in the peaceful settlement of disputes and its work in upholding the international rules-based order. Orders of the ICJ are binding on all parties, and they must comply with them. It is for the ICJ to make the final decision on the case, and we continue to follow the case very closely. As for export permits to Israel, it is important to understand what we are talking about here. There is a wide range of items that require an export permit. These include items such as telecom equipment, decontamination equipment, protective equipment and imaging equipment, military parts and components. There is also a wide range of end-users, including academic institutions and small businesses. When we look at permits for export to Israel in particular, in recent years, our government has not received and, therefore, has not approved any export permits for weapons: no permits for bombs, rockets, missiles or explosive devices. The permits issued since October 7 and, in fact, all permits that are currently open are for non-lethal equipment. I will reiterate that there are no current permits to export weapons or ammunition. Canada has a very robust export control system. We are a state party to the UN Arms Trade Treaty and take that responsibility very seriously. The government has been consistent and diligent in the way decisions have been made on export permits, and we will continue to be. That policy has not changed.

522 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Feb/14/24 7:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary knows, there is no agreed-upon definition of the term “non-lethal equipment”. However, I can share what Global Affairs shared with The Maple on its ATIP request during the first two months of the war in Gaza. GAC issued permits worth a total of $18.4 million that covered military items categorized as electronic equipment, $9.2 million more for aircraft, lighter-than-air aircraft. The list goes on and on. If we can have a reasonable conversation to be clear that these are the permits that GAC has made clear have been issued, if that is the case, and it is the case, in light of the ICJ decision, in light of our own Export and Import Permits Act, when will the Liberal government, along with other important calls that it has made, as has been shared this evening, end all permits for military equipment to the State of Israel?

160 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Feb/14/24 7:43:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, maintaining international peace and security are priority objectives of Canada's foreign policy. Civilians must be protected, and international law must be respected. Canada has one of the most rigorous export control systems in the world, and it is harmonized with those of our allies and partners. When we look at permits for Israel in particular, let us be clear. In recent years, our government has not received and, therefore, not approved any export permits for weapons. The permits issued since October 7 and, in fact, all permits that are currently open are for non-lethal weapons. I will repeat our calls for a sustainable ceasefire, for more aid to get into Gaza and for all hostages to be released. We remain committed to a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. We firmly stand with the Israeli and Palestinian people in their right to live in peace, security, dignity and without fear.

161 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Feb/14/24 7:44:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister stated that the Liberal government does not measure the annual emissions directly reduced by the carbon tax. Then the minister said that the government does measure this. It cannot be both. How many emissions were directly reduced by the carbon tax in 2023? That is, not the projection, not the estimate, but just the result.

60 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.)

Feb/14/24 7:44:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that climate change is an urgent threat that requires significant, decisive action. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians and people globally. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, cost of living, infrastructure, health and safety, and economic activity in communities across Canada and around the world. The federal approach to carbon pricing is designed with affordability in mind. We know it is not enough to create a cleaner economy; we have to make sure Canadians can afford it. Where federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families actually get more back through the Canada carbon rebate than they pay, meaning that this system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families. Let us not be nearsighted. Climate change is a global challenge, and the costs of inaction are high. As the IPCC made clear last year, climate change is an urgent threat that requires significant, decisive actions. Canadians want climate action, and the government owes it to them to be responsible and use policies that we know are the most efficient and cost-effective. Our approach ensures that Canadians are well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition under way.

217 words

Mr. Dan Mazier

Feb/14/24 7:46:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government did not answer my question. I am not asking about projections. I did not mention anything about percentages. I am not asking about estimates. The parliamentary secretary totally did not even answer my question. I am asking about results. My question is very simple: How many emissions were reduced directly from the carbon tax in 2023?

60 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Feb/14/24 7:46:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing is an effective and essential part of any serious response to the global challenge of climate change. Carbon pricing works by putting a cost on the thing we do not want, which is greenhouse gas emissions, and adding value to the things we do want: clean air; reliable, affordable, clean energy; and sustainable jobs. The federal approach to pricing carbon pollution is designed with a focus on affordability. Its goal is to reduce pollution, not raise revenues. Our approach puts money back in the pockets of Canadians. In fact, eight out of 10 households get back more in the Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay as a result of the federal carbon pricing system. This has been confirmed repeatedly in independent studies, including by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Evidence confirms that putting a price on carbon works. It spurs clean growth, supports jobs and cuts the pollution causing climate change.

155 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/14/24 7:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the question of the Prime Minister in November, it was very specific to the impact the carbon tax is having on the price of food. The parliamentary secretary just let something slip that runs completely contrary to the narrative the Liberals propagate on a daily basis and even the announcement they made today with their so-called carbon tax rebrand, which is this: She said that it is a feature of the carbon tax to raise prices on the things the government does not want. What does that translate to? It translates to higher costs for Canadians to be able to afford such things as groceries and other essentials at the grocery store. This relates to higher costs on the transportation of the goods we need, which are essential to our economy. It translates to higher costs for farmers and producers. The problem with the Liberal narrative on the carbon tax is that it is doing what it was designed to do, which is to raise prices; however, it does not lower emissions. That has been proven very clearly. Earlier today, I referred to a tragic example I had heard of a food bank in Flagstaff County. Lynn sent me an email. I know Lynn, and I appreciate her community volunteerism and activism. She talked about how food bank clients are lying about where they live and how many people are in their home. Why would this happen? One would think that lying is a bad thing, but they are lying out of desperation, because they are hungry. In this small-town food bank in a rural county in Alberta, because of the price of food, there are Canadians who are forced into a position where they are lying. They know that it could mean that they would be banned from the very food bank they need. It is a tragic consequence of the policies of the member, the ministers and the Prime Minister. Of course, we should not leave out of the conversation the lackeys in the NDP who are propping up the corruption, the high prices, the inflation and the carbon tax. There is a part of this conversation in addition to higher prices being a feature, not a flaw, of the carbon tax: the fact that emissions are not a part of the conversation, even though they claim, time and time again, it is, when their own numbers say that it is not. It is this: How high is it going to go? In 2015, the Liberals, the Prime Minister and many of those who were elected, ran on a platform promising that the price of the carbon tax would never be more than $50 a tonne. They said that was the maximum; it would never be any higher, and we could take that to the bank. That ended up to be the furthest thing from the truth. It was revealed not four years later that their actual plan was $170 a tonne, and they covered it up. They were not honest with Canadians. Here is the very clear question I would ask in a follow-up to the cost of living crisis that so many Canadians are facing. For more than half of Canadians, the indirect and direct costs of the carbon tax are leaving them with less money in their pockets, because the government is taking it away from them. I hope the parliamentary secretary listens and responds directly: Will the government follow the direction of certain international entities and activists that are calling on it to raise the carbon tax even higher? We hear that it could be as high as $1,000 a tonne. Do the Liberals plan for that carbon tax to go higher, which will raise the cost on everything? I would like a clear answer, please.

641 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.)

Feb/14/24 7:51:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member does not understand how a price on pollution works or why it is necessary. Canadians expect their elected representatives to pursue tangible solutions to address issues like affordability and climate change. In the past year alone, Canadians have endured severe climate-related events, including wildfires, droughts, heavy snowfall, torrential rain and tornadoes, marking some of the worst in our nation's history. These severe climate events are having a direct impact on food prices. Climate action is an economic necessity, and the government has a plan. We know that a price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting money back into the pockets of most Canadians. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, the proceeds generated from the price on pollution are returned to Canadians. In fact, eight out of 10 households in these provinces receive more money back through quarterly carbon rebates than they pay. For example, a family of four residing in Alberta can receive up to $1,800. Canadians are understandably worried as elevated global inflation and high interest rates continue to squeeze their finances. The economic environment has driven up the cost of far too many necessities, everything from housing to groceries. While Conservatives would have us think that carbon pricing is the main culprit, research from the University of Calgary reveals that the price on pollution adds less than a penny for every dollar spent on major expenses by Canadians. The government is actively tackling affordability issues by introducing new measures to alleviate the financial strain on Canadians. In the fall economic statement, we unveiled a comprehensive plan to bolster affordability and support Canadian households facing financial strain. The government has made significant amendments to the Competition Act, aimed at fostering greater competition within the grocery sector to lower costs and expand choices for Canadian consumers. The government is also cracking down on junk fees like international roaming charges and overdraft charges from banks that are costing Canadians. We are protecting homeowners with new mortgage relief measures. The government is moving forward with meaningful actions to make life more affordable in this country, all while fighting climate change.

373 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/14/24 7:54:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that I gave the member the opportunity to deny, very clearly, that their plan was to raise the carbon tax to $1,000 a tonne. She refused to do so. The Minister of the Environment, the criminal socialist activist who serves as environment minister of this country, has made it very clear that it is—

61 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 7:54:40 p.m.
Watch

I will remind the hon. member that we cannot call someone a criminal; let us back that rhetoric up just a little bit.

23 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/14/24 7:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the formerly convicted activist, who faced criminal charges, has said, even the other day, that the government had decided not to build any more roads and that Canadians should simply take a walk. Here is my suggestion: I would hope that the member would support the many Canadians who have reached out to me from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, saying that the environment minister, the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP are the ones who need to take a walk. Maybe instead of rebranding the carbon tax that is driving up the price of everything, let us rebrand the prime minister of the country and elect the member for Carleton as prime minister, to bring common sense and to bring home a government that actually works for Canadians.

137 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Feb/14/24 7:55:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was saying to someone just today that the ability to have respectful dialogue with each other and to disagree in an agreeable way is disappearing. I am really disappointed with the way the hon. member conducted himself during that rebuttal. It does not add to productive dialogue on issues, and it is unfortunate we cannot have conversations in a meaningful way. It is really unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition and his party do not have a plan to tackle climate change, and nor do they have any desire to have a respectful conversation on this issue or any other issue.

105 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/14/24 7:56:29 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:56 p.m.)

39 words