44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/18/24 10:16:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Humber River—Black Creek, as Transport Canada must address the ongoing aircraft-induced noise pollution by exercising its authority and implementing necessary actions in the Humber River—Black Creek community. They firmly believe that environmental responsibility extends to addressing both air pollution and the adverse effects of noise on their well-being.
Therefore, the undersigned residents of the Humber River—Black Creek community call upon the Government of Canada to promptly assess nighttime noise pollution caused by aircraft activities in their community; collaborate with Nav Canada to develop effective mitigation strategies, considering curfews and other noise reduction measures; establish and enforce noise level regulations, ensuring emissions remain with acceptable limits; conduct regular monitoring to ensure compliance with regulations; and engage in transparent communication with the Humber River—Black Creek community.
I should add that this is not an issue simply for the residents of Humber River—Black Creek; we have these kinds of issues throughout Canada.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, oil and gas has provided a lot of revenue to governments over the last decades.
Oil and gas in and of themselves are wonderful products. They make flight possible and, in some cases, they provide the basis for pharmaceuticals, the plastics industry and those things. What we are finding in this country, and what I do not think Conservatives understand, is that the planet is telling us that we are burning too much of it, too fast. We do not need to eliminate it totally. What we have to do is get our carbon emissions down below the limit that our natural environment can handle.
I am always shocked that Conservatives, particularly when the root of their name is “conserve”, would not be prudent and cautious when our natural world is telling us that we have to take our foot off the gas and we have to get carbon emissions below a level that our planet can handle. That does not mean that there is not a place or a use for any fossil fuels. It means we have to make sure we calibrate that in a manner that is in harmony with our natural world.
We are not doing that now, and that is why the NDP is so concerned about the climate crisis. It is because we risk planetary catastrophe.
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 1:23:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the first thing we need to do is get this anti-energy, anti-resource government out of the way and replace it with a common-sense Conservative government that will green-light green projects. When Germany, Greece and Japan recently came to Canada begging for our LNG, we should have been leaders and been able to provide that, not only to bring powerful paycheques to our Canadian people but to replace dirty dictator oil around the world.
Another great way to lower global emissions is to replace that dirty dictator oil with clean, green, low-carbon Canadian energy that we can be proud of and that brings powerful paycheques to our people and a better economy, which will help fix the productivity issue. After nine years of this government, Canada does not look like it is open for business anymore.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:35:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives blame the cost of living crisis on carbon pricing and proven emissions reduction strategies, they are only serving the greedy corporate interests of billionaire grocery and oil and gas executives.
There is no rebate on the provincial gas tax that Danielle Smith jacked up on Albertans on April 1. There is no rebate on the summer fuel surcharge or excessive oil and gas profits. However, the Canada carbon rebate has four quarterly payments per year as an incentive to use a little less and get a little more tax-free cash in one's account four times a year.
The Conservatives do not have a plan for affordability. They do not have a plan for the environment. They consistently prioritize the corporate interests of their greedy oil and gas masters over the needs of everyday Canadians.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:36:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there was an election on the carbon tax. In fact, there were three of them. We won them all.
Last election, the Conservatives ran on a promise with Erin O'Toole. Do members remember his little cover that he cared about the environment for a change? All of a sudden, Conservatives cared about climate change, and they were going to use carbon pricing to lower emissions. Well, they lost, but they still all ran on that promise to price carbon. However, when a new member of parliament the petro-puppet of Carleton, came into play as the leader of the Conservatives—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:50:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as wildfires devastate Canadian communities, the need for sustainable clean energy is greater than ever, yet the Liberals continue to side with the oil and gas industry and delay on placing a strong emissions cap on big polluters. Conservatives, on the other hand, are happy to sit back and let the planet burn.
New Democrats know that immediate action is needed to tackle the climate crisis. Why do the Liberals keep catering to big oil and refuse to enforce an emissions cap to save the future of our kids?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-380, a private member's bill from my friend and colleague, the member for Saskatoon—University, with the very important aim of repealing the government's irresponsible and senseless ban on single-use plastics.
This debate tonight is not about plastic waste, although certainly there is more to be done there. This is about whether plastic manufactured products are toxic, because that is what the government did. It had them labelled “toxic” and it was ruled to be unconstitutional.
In my speech today, I will first outline the history of the ban and its flawed premise, and then detail why it is ultimately unhelpful to the environment and talk about the harmful impacts on Canadians and Canadian industry. Finally, I will expand on the unintended and knock-on consequences of the ban, with a final appeal to the House for some common sense.
Canadians are now unfortunately well versed in the effects of climate change. The Liberals, with a need to be seen to be taking action, decided to place the blame for climate change exclusively on Canadian consumers, making plastics the scapegoat with a particular spotlight on single-use plastics.
In 2019, the Prime Minister announced bans on single-use plastics, and in May 2021, plastic manufactured items were added to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, to be designated as toxic. In June 2022, six categories of single-use plastics, or SUPs, were banned, with a timeline to prohibit manufacture and import for sale in Canada, prohibition on sale in Canada and prohibition on manufacturing, import and export sales.
Unfortunately, quite in line with a government bent on destroying Canada's competitiveness and foreign direct investment, checkout bags, cutlery, straws, food service utensils, stir sticks, ring carriers and plastic straws packaged with drink containers were outlawed in one fell swoop. Yes, because banning the straws from juice boxes in the lunches of Canada's first graders will definitely beat climate change. No, it will not.
First, this ban on single-use plastics is unfounded and a serious overreach. Plastic manufactured items, as I referred to, do not rightfully belong in the CEPA list as a toxic substance. CEPA is a federal criminal statute and the enabling mechanism that the federal government is applying wrongly to provide a legal basis for usurping provincial powers over waste management and the local plastics economy.
Using CEPA, while unjustified, allows the federal government to take control of provincial waste management systems and centralizes all decisions related to what plastic products can be manufactured, imported, exported and distributed in Canada. CEPA is a chemical management tool for toxic substances. It was never intended to be an environmental management tool. This broadens the scope of the act, which was to list chemically harmful substances like mercury and lead as toxic. Therefore, listing the entire category of plastic manufactured items in schedule 1 of the CEPA without a chemical risk assessment testing for toxicity is a serious violation of the act.
What is more is that it is not even plastic itself that is listed as toxic. It is plastic manufactured items, things like medical supplies and devices, protective equipment, food packaging, fridges and cars. All of these are made with plastic. Are they all toxic? No, they are not.
I worked for 21 years as a chemical engineer in plastics. I designed many plastic products used in medical devices, medical supplies and food packaging. I was involved in the approval process to understand how we assess to make sure they do not have a negative medical impact.
People here in the House every day are drinking orange juice from a plastic container. Is it toxic? No, it is not. They are eating their yogourt in the lobby from a plastic container. Is it toxic? No, it is not. They are going to the hospital, and in the hospital they use a single-use plastic for blood transfusions. Is it toxic? No, it is not. We are putting contact lenses in our eyes that are plastic. Is it toxic? No, it is not. We are giving babies formula in plastic bottles. Is it toxic? No, it is not.
It is such a ridiculous argument to say that plastic is not toxic, but plastic manufactured items are. That is like me saying that the wool I am knitting with is not toxic, but the sweater I produce is. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Even the minister himself said at the environment committee, “Plastics are not toxic in the normal sense of the word that people use pejoratively,” and that he does not think anybody says they are. Then why are they on the list? This is causing a huge issue in the industry, threatening jobs and the environment. As usual for the Liberals, their words and actions do not line up.
Perhaps they think that by banning plastics and causing serious deleterious effects to Canadians and Canadian industry, they can fool voters into thinking they did something, but like most Liberal strategies, it is built on false premises. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that banning single-use plastics will assist with the reduction of plastic pollution and emissions production. However, the scale of plastic pollution is small, less than 1% of all litter in Canada, according to a report written by the Liberal government in 2020.
Further, only 1% of Canada's plastic waste is disposed of improperly. Plastic pollution is not a pervasive problem in Canada. Moreover, alternatives to plastic actually produce more carbon emissions, not less. We know the government loves McKinsey and its consulting work, so I will quote from one of its reports, “The potential impact of reusable packaging”. Modelling done by McKinsey in 2023 indicates that there would be a 150% increase in emissions due to the higher share of fossil components in materials, transport and energy use to make the alternative products. What a good job fighting climate change.
These so-called alternatives cost twice as much to make as well. Packaging accounts for 10% to 20% of a product's cost, and if the packaging now costs twice as much, as likewise estimated in that same McKinsey report, there will be a significant inflationary increase to consumers if the government introduces requirements related to use, recycled content and eliminating plastic from produce and meats. That is just what we need when Canadians cannot afford to eat and are going to homeless shelters and food banks in increasing numbers.
As it is, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates the added cost to the Canadian economy is $1.9 billion to produce these alternatives to the banned plastic packaging. We use plastic for a reason. It is vital to extend the shelf life of foods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. These fresh fruits and vegetables, even pet food, will face a reduced shelf life and increased prices due to the federal regulations on plastic.
The Canadian Produce Marketing Association estimates it will cost between $2.5 billion and $5 billion in costs for food losses, accompanying an estimated half million tonne increase in food losses. Rotting food increases methane emissions. At a time when so many Canadians are struggling and the food banks are seeing unprecedented usage, it is unconscionable.
Worse still are the effects on the thousands of families who rely on those working in the plastic manufacturing industry. More than 99,000 people work in the Canadian plastics industry, which is estimated to be worth $35 billion. The ban will impact 13,000 to 20,000 direct jobs and as many as 26,000 to 40,000 indirect jobs. Together, that is up to 60,000 Canadians who will face further hardship at the hands of the Liberal-NDP government and its ideology.
In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, there are multiple plastics facilities that produce single-use plastics. In 2019, the federal Liberals decided they wanted Nova Chemicals to build a $3-billion plant in my riding instead of in Texas. They provided incentives and money to get it to build a single-use plastic production facility that would export plastics to the world. The very next month, they decided they were going to ban the products it is producing, and now they are planning to stop the export. They would shut that facility down, along with all the economic benefits. It is total hypocrisy on the part of the government.
Are we really going to destroy the lives and livelihoods of 60,000 Canadians and their families while putting increased costs and inconveniences on Canadians for a detrimental environmental and economic outcome? There is no benefit to this, and it was an egregious error to enact the ban in the first place.
Instead, efforts can be made to shore up recycling and recovery infrastructure to better manage plastic waste sources. These industries are willing to partner to address some of the issues that we know exist with plastics, like microbeads in the Great Lakes, for example. Let us work on those problems.
Plastics are not toxic, and plastic-manufactured products are not toxic, so I implore the government to listen to reason and common sense.
1550 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 6:46:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals' gaslighting is endless. If they were forced to pay the carbon tax on all that hot air, we could pay off their $2-trillion debt tomorrow.
As these far left radicals grow even more desperate, Canadians can expect a flood of misinformation and disinformation of biblical size. Their favourite tactic will be the classic accusation in the mirror. They accuse everyone else of doing exactly the thing that they are doing. They will shamelessly claim that all we have are slogans.
This comes from the party so infatuated with round numbers that every environmental policy has the same 30 by 30 slogan. They said they would reduce emissions 30% by 2030. They said they would render 30% of Canada's land and seas unusable by 2030. Their Soviet-style car sales mandate goes even further, forcing 50% EVs by 2030.
After nine years, all the Liberals have are empty slogans, broken promises and a mountain of debt. The Prime Minister and his socialist coalition are just not worth the cost.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, burning coal for electricity is the dirtiest source of power generation. It produces the most greenhouse gases globally. The IPCC states that the world must dramatically reduce its consumption of coal by 2030 to avoid the worst outcomes of the climate crisis. When thermal coal is exported to be burned in other countries, it has a devastating impact on global emissions. However, here in Canada, the government is choosing to ignore the facts when it comes to coal.
In 2021, the Liberals ran on an environment platform that promised they would phase out thermal coal exports. When they formed government, the Prime Minister ordered the Minister of Environment to phase out thermal coal exports in his mandate letter. What actions has the Liberal government taken since then? Nothing. In fact, since the Liberals took power in 2015, thermal coal exports have tripled. How can the Minister of Environment look at himself in the mirror? How can the Liberal members look at themselves in the mirror and call themselves climate champions?
Canada is ignoring its own climate commitments and sending millions of tonnes of thermal coal across the globe. We are shipping the dirtiest fossil fuel to be burnt in faraway lands where we can close our eyes and pretend that everything is fine. Everything is not fine.
Greenhouse gas emissions do not know international borders. Rising temperatures hurt us all. Increased natural disasters are happening around the globe, but especially here in Canada in my home province of B.C. Even if the thermal coal that originates from Canada or the U.S. is burnt in China, it is the same greenhouse gas emissions that fuel the conditions for the dry forests that light up in flames across this country, displacing thousands of people.
Why has the government not fulfilled its promise to Canadians to end thermal coal exports? Why does it continue to mislead Canadians and promise climate action, but continually fall short? It is no wonder that Canadians are cynical. This last year alone, Canada exported 19.5 million tonnes of thermal coal. In 2022, 40 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions were burnt from Canadian thermal coal exports. That is roughly the same number of emissions as 16.7 million cars. Every year, air pollution contributes to roughly one million deaths around the world. Burning coal is a big factor in this.
Canadian coal should not be playing a role in polluting the air we breathe. This is one of the many reasons I tabled my private member's bill, Bill C-383, to phase out thermal coal exports, work with unions to ensure sustainable job transitions and fulfill our international climate commitments.
My question for the member is this: Will you fulfill your promise to Canadians and phase out thermal coal? Why have you broken this promise?
473 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 6:51:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is quite rich of the NDP member. Even though I align with her in terms of our commitment on fighting climate change and doing what is best for our economy and environment, I think it is a bit rich for her to say that we are misleading Canadians when the NDP is flip-flopping on the most effective market-based mechanism for reducing carbon emissions, which is carbon pricing. Their leader seems to have recently supported the Conservatives and others around the country who are making that an issue and trying to back off from carbon pricing.
At the committee that I have been on in the past, the NDP members have supported giving a free pass to farmers to burn fossil fuels on farms, so it is a bit rich for the member opposite to—
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 6:53:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government is not breaking any promises. On the contrary, Canada is playing a strong leadership role in phasing out thermal coal, both domestically and internationally.
The science is very clear about coal; it is one of the largest contributors to climate change. We know that we need to go further and make coal history for good if we want to give the world a fighting chance to hold global warming to 1.5°C.
I am proud that Canada was among the first movers on this issue. At COP26 in 2021, Canada was the first country in the world to commit to banning the export of thermal coal by no later than 2030, and we will make that happen.
Right now, the government is considering a range of possible options to implement the ban. There are several factors to take into consideration, from socio-economic impacts to environmental and trade impacts, and we must make sure the ban aligns with other federal, provincial and territorial policies. However, alas, we will get there. Moving away from exporting thermal coal is a must, and it makes good economic sense over the long term, too, as more affordable, clean energy options are becoming available in many countries around the world.
Meanwhile, we are already seeing significant progress in the retirement of coal in Canada. Our government has already put in place regulations to accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired electricity in Canada by 2030, and we are on track to meet our goal, with the four remaining coal-burning provinces all making excellent progress in their transition to cleaner electricity.
We are also providing economic support of $185 million for coal workers and their communities. We have put a price on carbon pollution. We have committed to greater support for clean technology. We have committed to emissions reduction across the economy from all traditional sectors, and we are developing a plan to phase-out public financing for the fossil fuel sector by fall 2024, which is this year.
Supporting the switch to clean energy is a priority for this government. It is something that I have spent my career and my life advocating for, and I am very happy to see us making strides in that direction. We want to make sure the coal phase-out translates into new jobs and economic opportunities for Canadian families as we respond to the ever-urgent climate crisis.
407 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 6:55:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to me that the member initially answered my question about why the government is tripling its thermal coal exports by talking about carbon pricing and by accusing the NDP of not having strong climate action, when it is this government that continues to use carbon pricing as a political wedge and to hold it up as proof of its climate credibility.
The consumer carbon price makes about 8% to 14%. However, thermal coal exports are having a detrimental impact on global emissions. Coal exports are one of the biggest reasons that global emissions are rising. When I uncovered that thermal coal exports had tripled, I was shocked. I am used to the Liberals breaking promises, but they did not just delay this promise, and they did not just delay climate action this time. They said they would phase it out, but the exports tripled. After this was revealed, one would think it would prompt action, but no, they have done—
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
