SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 251

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 20, 2023 11:00AM
  • Nov/20/23 5:00:17 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, if this member were really concerned about climate change, he would be looking at getting China off of coal-fired plants. Why would we not be building more to get LNG to China to help take it off dirty coal? At the end of the day, LNG is a great asset we have as Canadians, and we should be doing a better job to produce it, export it and help other people get off dirtier forms of energy. We should be doing that right now, here in this country.
91 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:00:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, the carbon tax has now become one of the most hated and reviled taxes in all of Canadian history. When we talk about exports, it is quite interesting that the government has decided to export a carbon tax into a trade agreement for the first time ever. In all of the trade agreements Canada has signed across the world, there is no carbon tax; there is no mention of carbon price or carbon leakage. For the first time ever, the government has decided to put a carbon tax into a trade agreement with a country in the middle of a war. I wonder what the member thinks about that.
111 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, in terms of the carbon tax, one of the things the Liberal government fails to understand is that nobody else is doing this. Our trading partners certainly are not. It is a complete and total competitive disadvantage for what we are doing. If we just look at where the carbon tax comes from, it is paid by farmers. Right now, we have a Liberal government that is stalling a bill that we passed here in the House, Bill C-234. All members of Parliament and of the Senate passed it. The Liberal government is now stalling on trying to help farmers, to help them with what they are doing for heating or cooling their barns and drying their grain. Why would the Liberal government want to continue with a carbon tax that actually puts the price of food up? Then it goes to the truckers who have to pay the tax on their fuel. It goes all the way through. When we are in a complete and total financial crisis, an affordability crisis and a housing crisis, one would think that the government would be looking at other things, such as technology, something other than a carbon tax, when, quite frankly, most of the other countries in the world that we trade with do not have the same disadvantage.
221 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:02:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as a representative of the amazing people and spectacular region of North Okanagan—Shuswap. Before I speak to Bill C-57, I would like to acknowledge that many of us have returned to Ottawa today after spending Remembrance Day and last week in our ridings. I would like to thank all of the volunteers who gave up their time to organize and participate in the Remembrance Day ceremonies in 16 different communities and locations across North Okanagan—Shuswap and those who participated across Canada. Without those volunteers, the many ceremonies of remembrance would not have been possible. It is especially heartwarming to see the large turnouts paying respect to our veterans and heart-wrenching to know that, at the same time, there are still battles going on around the world with soldiers and civilians losing their lives to war every day. I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Conservatives have a long history of supporting free trade with other countries. My Conservative colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, served as Canada's longest-serving minister of international trade and worked on many successful trade agreements during his tenure in the portfolio, including Canada's existing free trade agreement with Ukraine, the agreement that this bill seeks to amend. In fact, he negotiated trade agreements with 46 countries in that time. As we look at this bill and the agreement itself, we as legislators have a duty to ensure that the law and the agreement are in the best interest of Canadians. We are closely examining this bill, to ensure that this is the case. We as Conservatives and Canadians also believe in supporting our Ukrainian allies. Increasing trade between our nations is but one way of providing that support. No one is debating whether we should have a free trade agreement with Ukraine. Indeed, we currently have free trade through the 2017 Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. Obviously, trade is happening between our countries. In fact, following the ratification of the original Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, non-coal exports to Ukraine grew by 28.5% between 2016 and 2019. Canada's relationship with Ukraine is strong, with over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian origin living in Canada. Some of those are newcomers, who have come to Canada fleeing Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022. I have had the pleasure of meeting some of those newcomers to Canada at special events in Vernon and Salmon Arm and other locations, where the outpouring of community support has made them feel welcome and eases the burden of fleeing their homeland, many with nothing more than what they could carry in their arms or on their backs. Meeting those newcomers from Ukraine and hearing their resolve to maintain their freedom and desire to return and rebuild their lives and their country has been inspirational. This legislation aims to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which contains 11 new chapters. These include rules of origin, government procurement, monopoly, digital trade, e-commerce and more. The document is around 600 pages long. Proposed paragraph13.10(8) states, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources”. It also contains purposes, including “promote sustainable development” and “promote high levels of environmental protection”. When I consider what this could mean, I find great differences in what the government promotes and what it actually achieves. I say this because Canada has some of the largest reserves of natural gas for producing liquefied natural gas, LNG, in the world, and yet when Canada was approached to supply LNG to Germany, a neighbour of Ukraine, to help break Europe’s dependence on gas from Putin’s Russia, Germany was told there was no business case. Not only would the export of Canadian natural gas have helped defund Russia’s war machine, but it would also have helped transition Europe away from coal-fired power generation. So here we have a free trade agreement that is to promote a high level of environmental protection and a government that refuses to acknowledge how much Canadian energy could do toward that goal if we were able to export it to replace energy from regimes with lower standards for production and disregard of human rights. The government has denied the opportunity for Canada to export clean-burning natural gas with its burdensome, red-tape strangled regulatory process. Rather than promoting a product that would help Ukraine build and rebuild, and transition to a cleaner energy source, the Prime Minister said there was no business case for it. This is a loss of opportunity for Canadians and a loss of opportunity for Germany, Ukraine and other European nations. Canada could help displace dirty coal-fired electricity generation with cleaner LNG. There is a reason that this should be done expediently as Ukraine suffers from the ravages of war, requires energy to rebuild and can no longer obtain LNG from Russia. Canada could be helping. I will go back to remind the hon. members here of the number of free trade agreements that were completed or negotiated under the previous Conservative government and the work that Canada, under a Conservative government, accomplished on the world stage. It is also worth noting that Canada supported democracy in Ukraine when we sent 500 observers to Ukraine to monitor the presidential elections in 2014. Before I close, I would like to raise the matter of another item that should be addressed through a different free trade agreement, one affecting British pensioners living in Canada. These pensioners from the United Kingdom receive retirement pensions, but those pensions have never been indexed to the cost of living increases for U.K. pensioners living in Canada. This is an issue I hear about from U.K. pensioners living in the North Okanagan—Shuswap and I hear about how it is causing them to lose thousands of dollars in their retirement. While this government is negotiating a trade agreement with the U.K., I urge the government to press for indexing of U.K. pensions in Canada, just like Canadians retiring in other countries, including the U.K., have their pensions indexed. As we continue debate on Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, I urge this government to focus on what will be good for Canada, good for Ukraine and good for the people of our two countries by ensuring that our laws and trade agreements benefit both nations and do not unduly hinder our energy sector and the progress that could be made in both countries by promoting it.
1171 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:11:48 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, this past weekend, I participated in the Halifax International Security Forum with members of Parliament across the way. We heard extensively about the importance of supporting Ukraine both currently but also with respect to their rebuilding. I quote from the head of the Centre of Civil Liberties Ukraine, “there is a huge difference between let's help Ukraine not to fail and let's help Ukraine to win. And we can practically measure this difference in types of weapons, in gravity of sanctions and speed of decisions.” We heard very clearly this weekend about the importance of helping Ukraine and making decisions with respect to this bill so that they can start predicting and making sure they have a capacity to rebuild. Will the member opposite support and vote in favour of Bill C-57?
139 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:12:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite the question back to her, but I do not think I am allowed to do that. Perhaps another time she would be able to explain why her Prime Minister, her leader, decided that there was no business case for exporting LNG from Canada to Europe when the U.S. has gone ahead and done this. Now, France has signed a 27-year agreement to import LNG from countries with far lower standards of production and far fewer human rights activities in their countries. Why would she do that?
98 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:13:32 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, we have another Conservative speech and another sense of this so-called clean fossil gas, and it is just simply not the case. Over one-third of Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions comes from fossil gas. In addition, most fossil gas is produced by fracking. Fracking leads to toxic waste water. There is nothing clean about toxic gas. If the Conservatives wanted to critique this free trade agreement, they could talk about how the government is not on track to meet the 1.5°C target in the Paris Agreement, but they are not doing that. Why is that the case?
104 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:14:13 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, I will talk about how the government has failed to meet any of its targets for carbon emissions. The only time it met a target was when the economy was shut down because of COVID, when nobody was moving. Nobody was doing anything because of the travel restrictions. It has put out all kinds of ideologies and proposed all sorts of things, but it has accomplished so little in eight years. We are seeing that the government is just not worth the cost.
85 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:15:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, experts have told us that the last 12 months were the warmest 12 months on this planet in 125,000 years. Are the Conservatives seriously telling us today that the reason they are not moving ahead on implementing this free trade agreement is because it makes reference to climate change?
52 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:15:17 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, I made no such reference. We saw how hot it was when the fires took place in the North Okanagan—Shuswap, in my riding, this year. However, the climate is a global issue. Canadian-produced LNG can be produced in a more environmentally friendly way than it can anywhere else in the world. If we can help get countries off dirty burning coal with our clean LNG, why would we not be doing that?
77 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:15:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech; it was great. There was a question raised by a Liberal member, who said that this bill, this legislation, this trade agreement is going to help Ukraine rebuild. The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to require concrete, steel and heavy equipment. All these things are very carbon-intensive. If the Liberals actually wanted to help Ukraine rebuild, why would they have put a carbon tax into a trade agreement for the first time ever? Does my colleague think this is actually going to help with the cost of rebuilding Ukraine after it wins the war?
104 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:16:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, no, I do not think a carbon tax in a free trade agreement is going to help Ukraine rebuild whatsoever. It will need the lowest cost and the most environmentally friendly energy possible. It can get that from Canada, yet we have a government that is throwing up red tape, bureaucracy and regulations in the way of doing any of that.
63 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:17:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member a bit of a redo. He said that nobody was doing much of anything during COVID. I would argue that there were some frontline workers who were doing significant things. In addition, I would like to talk more about the fact that this FTA enhances some protections for workers. The Conservative Party has talked about how incredibly supportive it is of workers. However, this is a perfect example of how we could strengthen and enhance workers' rights around the world, such as the right to join a union and the right to strike, as an important part of this free trade agreement. Is that too woke for this member?
119 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:17:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing up the figure of speech I used, I guess wrongly. Yes, there were a lot of health care workers and other essential service providers who were doing incredible work during the COVID restrictions. I meant there was very little travel. All activity slowed down, so that was part of it. I thank her for that, and I was—
67 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:18:15 p.m.
  • Watch
We will have to leave it at that. Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
79 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:19:04 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division, please.
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:19:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-57 
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
23 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:19:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:42 p.m.
22 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/20/23 5:20:16 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise, following up on my question from a few weeks ago about the so-called carbon tax exemption being provided on home heating oil, which only 3% of Canadians are going to be able to enjoy, and only with the condition that it is for just three years. After the three years, everybody who is on home heating oil will have their carbon tax massively increased, which just so happens to be the timeline for the next federal election. This will be important for the question I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary. It drastically impacts the political fortunes of the Liberal Party of Canada. I want to draw the attention of the House to a statement by an economics professor from the University of Calgary, who said the following: “In what can only be described as a cynical political move to grab regional votes, the Liberals have undermined their signature—and principled—cornerstone climate policy. They basically teed up the opposition comments for them. I fear and predict it all unravels from here.” This was from Professor Blake Shaffer, an associate professor in the Department of Economics and School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. Another well-known Albertan, a professor from the University of Alberta, Trevor Tombe, says this: “The carbon tax is dead.” He goes on to explain why it is dead. I want to draw the attention of the House, and also of my constituents, to this. My constituents are extremely worried. Their taxes have gone up massively. They are paying more on their mortgages, which have doubled. Rents have doubled. They are paying more on their natural gas bill, and for some it has more than doubled. There are many single-family detached homes in my riding, and on their natural gas bill, people are getting sticker shock month after month. We are heading into the winter months, and it is only getting worse. They will not get to enjoy a reprieve from the carbon tax; in fact, they are going to be paying more. Just like the people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, many of us use natural gas for our home heating. I note that the Saskatchewan government has now moved to stop the Saskatchewan crown corporation from passing on carbon tax revenues to the federal government. There is a great Yiddish proverb that says that you can't dance with two people when you have only one. There is another term that sounds way better in Yiddish, but it suggests that one cannot do two things at the same time. The government claimed, during the carbon tax case, that it must proceed with a backstop on all provinces in Canada, and it must impose it. It has undermined its own legal argument that it made before the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Canada officials have made arguments that it must proceed with the carbon tax in this manner because any type of carve-out for home heating oil basically undermines the constitutionality now of the tax itself. In that case, the Supreme Court explicitly left open the possibility that regulations under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act could be unconstitutional, even if the act is constitutional, and that the act's being constitutional is largely based on this fact, its indivisibility of a minimum price on greenhouse gas pollutants. Then it goes on. There are two more legal reasons why it has completely undermined the legal case to maintain the carbon tax with this latest carve-out. It is that it is political. A Liberal cabinet minister made the claim that the only reason that it is not applying to those in my home province of Alberta, and in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which do not have the reduction of the carbon tax temporarily, is that it is political. My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Does he not then agree with the economics professors from my home province that his own government has completely undermined the case for the carbon tax and that it is hurting the people of Alberta?
696 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border