SoVote

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

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Oct/31/22 5:27:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of numbers for my colleague opposite and the other members who continue to debate this bill past the number of hours typically spent on a budget implementation act. The first number is zero. That is the number of people in the House or really anywhere who have talked about banning single-use plastics from the health care sector. The number is zero because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about things where there is a viable alternative, such as when something can be made out of paper instead. Somebody earlier said that paper straws are worse for the environment than plastic straws. We all know that is not correct. Zero people are talking about banning single-use plastics in the health care sector. The other number that I have for my colleague is 338. That is how many members in the House of Commons went door to door in the last election and ran on a platform including carbon pricing. We should get over the fact that pricing carbon is one of the foundations for an important environmental platform because we all ran on it in the last election.

200 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

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

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

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

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:29:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the conversation in the House today has to do with what the government is doing concerning the environment— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

26 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/31/22 5:29:55 p.m.
Watch

Could we give the hon. member the opportunity to answer the question that was asked? The hon. member for Lethbridge.

20 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Oct/31/22 5:30:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, today, I feel there is a degree of consensus around adopting this bill and referring it to a committee to make some amendments. We all understand the importance of modernizing this act, which is the same age as my daughter, 23 years old. It is not old, but it has not been updated in 23 years. Can my colleague give us one example of an amendment that she would make to improve the bill, not tie it up in committee?

82 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:30:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

I am good.

3 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:30:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, basically, the entirety of my speech talked about the provision in the preamble around guaranteeing Canadians the right to a healthy environment. It is in the preamble, which indicates that the government lacks the courage to put it in the bill and be held accountable for that. Perhaps we could start there when it comes to amending this bill.

61 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/31/22 5:31:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I noted that the hon. member did address an important point with which I agree, which is that the right to a healthy environment must be a real right, an enforceable right, which would mean that the government has to open up section 22 of the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act. However, I noted her reference to blood oil. The Green Party agrees that we should cancel all imports of oil from any foreign countries and only use Canadian oil, but there is a surprisingly small component of Saudi Arabian oil coming to Canada. All of it goes to the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. I wonder if the hon. member might want to comment on what could be done to get the worst and most human rights violating nations out of Canada's energy streams.

140 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Oct/31/22 5:32:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I believe that if we are serious about wanting to make sure that we are taking care of our health as Canadians but also the health of world, which should be at least, in part, our endeavour, then we do need to consider our sources pertaining to oil and gas. When we bring in, from countries that do not have high environmental standards or do not treat people with the utmost respect for human rights, then we are actually functioning in an unethical manner ourselves. We have an opportunity to correct that by—

96 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/31/22 5:32:45 p.m.
Watch

Resuming date, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

11 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Oct/31/22 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here in the House to address the government's bill, Bill S-5, and more broadly to address the environmental policy approach taken by this government. Sadly, we are seven years into the tenure of this government, and it still does not have an environmental plan. It does not have a plan to address the challenges we face in terms of climate change or various other issues. What it has in reality is a tax plan that it would like to tell us is an environmental plan. Its plan is to continue to increase its carbon tax, to triple its carbon tax, yet it wants to back away from the actual nature of that policy and the mechanism by which it is supposed to work. Those who favour a carbon tax as a response to the challenges we face associated with climate change believe essentially that raising the price of goods that entail carbon emissions will discourage people from consuming those goods, engender less consumption of those goods and therefore entail fewer emissions overall. That is the logic of a carbon tax. It is not one I agree with, but I can at least understand that is how it is proposed by those who defend it, at least by those who defend it honestly. However, entailed in that process is the idea that by increasing the price of goods, such as driving, airline flights and heating one's home, people will do it less. When we read in the news that people are suffering because of higher prices, that they are worried about whether they can heat their homes, that they are being forced to cancel vacations or trips in their car to visit or support family members, it is important for people to understand that it is not some accidental by-product of the carbon tax policy. It is actually the purpose of the carbon tax policy. It is to lead people to do fewer of those activities. It is to lead people to heat their homes less, to drive less, to travel less, etc. The government has put in place a policy that is designed to limit the ability of Canadians to do those various things, yet we have members of this coalition, NDP and Liberal politicians, who act surprised that this is the outcome. They ask why gas prices are higher. I do not know, but maybe it is because they have imposed a tax on gas specifically designed for the purpose of raising the price. That would be one explanation of why gas prices are higher. Now, let us acknowledge that there are many things that go into the price of gas. There are many things that go into the price of these various goods that are taxed by the carbon tax, but one of those contributing factors to the price is the tax that is put on top of it. Therefore, I wish members of the costly coalition in this place would be willing to own up to the fact that this is the consequence of the policy they have put in place. We should also note just how grievously unfair that policy is, because the people who are going to be forced to cancel those trips and the people who are going to be forced to sit in the cold are people who are relatively less well off. Many members of the House, people who are in a better position financially, are going to be able to continue to afford to travel. They are going to be able to continue to afford to heat their homes, but many Canadians will not. Those many Canadians bear the brunt of the cost associated with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very regressive in the way that it hits the population. It is regressive in that it imposes those costs most on those who can least afford to pay them. This is not an environmental plan. Why do I say that? It is because the independent analyses have shown very clearly that the government's carbon tax will not achieve the environmental objectives that it wants it to. Why is that the case? Why does this logic that imposing costs on people will lead to less consumption not work? It is because many of the goods we are talking about are essentials. We live in Canada. People need to heat their homes. Of course, there are adaptations people can make. They can make renovations to their homes, but for those who are most affected by the carbon tax, they likely struggle to afford those kinds of adaptations. Therefore, the approach we have emphasized is how we support people with new technology but also with various kinds of deductions that allow them to make those kinds of adaptations. Our approach has always emphasized technology as opposed to taxes. That is why a previous Conservative government brought in the home renovation tax credit. Some of these changes are aimed at making it easier for people to afford the adaptations they need. It is an environment-oriented tax cut instead of imposing a punitive tax on people. A tax-cut approach helps people have the resources they need to make these kinds of adaptation. The problem is, when people are barely getting by and we increase costs on them, that is not going to lead them to make adaptations to their lives. That is not going to allow them to afford a new home with better insulation. They are struggling to get by. That is the point and that is the reality. This carbon tax is part of a politically manufactured affordability crisis that we have in this country. The government's out-of-control spending is driving up the cost of everything by driving inflation. The government is responding to that by additional punitive taxes. Of course, we know about its planned payroll taxes, but also its plan with the carbon tax. It is particularly notable now, in the global context we are in, what a failure the government's approach to energy policy is. More and more countries are recognizing how important energy security is. We are seized with the horrific, genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we are thinking about what more we can do to support Ukraine. There are many areas the government needs to do more, but one of those areas is to work toward, as quickly as possible, increasing Canadian energy production and support our European allies by supplying them with the vital energy they need to not be dependent on Russian gas. Canada is one of the only democracies in the world that has an abundance of natural resources. As it happens, many of the world's democracies are geographically small, populous nations that rely on the import of natural resources. Within the community of democratic nations, because we are rich in natural resources and because we are more sparsely populated, I believe Canada has a special vocation in terms of supplying our like-minded allies with the energy resources they need to not be reliant on dictator oil and not feel forced to contort their foreign policy to access the energy that they need. Canada can play that role in displacing Russian energy in Europe. It is not just about replacing foreign energy imports into Canada, although that is part of the picture. We should be replacing foreign energy imports into Canada and displacing dictator oil from our European partners. This is an urgent issue in terms of global security and Canada needs to step up. However, the Prime Minister and other ministers continue to throw cold water on proposals for more support to Europe in the form of natural gas production, exports and other things along those lines. It is a huge missed opportunity. An hon. member: I was choking, too. Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP is making jokes about my cough. I will not take it personally, and I wish him well. The legislation we have in front of us does not respond to—

1359 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus

Oct/31/22 5:41:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not making fun of his cough. I thought the cough was the best part of his speech.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

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

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

20 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/31/22 5:41:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I could say about that member's contributions to the House. I will come back to it in due course, but I do want to get in some final points. Bill S-5 is a piece of legislation that contains some things that Conservatives can support. We look forward to proposing amendments to aspects of the legislation. A major concern of my constituents is the fact that this legislation continues to allow the label “toxic” to be associated with plastic, yet we use plastic for so many everyday things that labelling plastic, in general, as toxic is just ridiculous. Work is required. In general, I think it is clear that the government's proposals around the environment are a total failure. They are not working, and they are manufacturing an affordability crisis in Canada. We need to emphasize technology, not taxes, and we need an approach that addresses the affordability crisis and improves the environment at the same time.

167 words

All Topics

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

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

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

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/31/22 5:43:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that his government's plan is to triple the carbon tax over time. It tells us it is going to be tripled, and that we will get to that tripling, but only through little increases that we will barely notice. The member is right, it is increasing on April 1, and those increases add up insofar as they impact virtually all of the goods that individuals consume. Moreover, I think people want us to take a step back and say that this tripling of the tax, which is being done a little at a time, will add up and significantly affect their bottom line.

110 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

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

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

110 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/31/22 5:45:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. In principle, I agree with the idea of a right to a healthy environment. I also mentioned the problem with the designation of plastics as toxic in general. That is not something that is changed by the bill. It is a pre-existing problem regarding the intentions of the current government. As the member suggested, that is both a positive and a negative.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

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

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

112 words

All Topics