44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 20, 2023 11:00AM
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 5:19:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division, please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 5:19:34 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 5:23:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer this question. To my friend and colleague from Calgary Shepard I say dziękuję bardzo. I know he is a member of Polish heritage. I spent lots of time in Poland and I love the country very much. I used to race over there on Lake Malta. It is nice.
Before I start my speech, I would like to correct the record, if I could. I believe the member opposite has mischaracterized Professor Tombe's position on carbon pricing, because very recently he came out in support of carbon pricing. He has suggested that Alberta produce a similar piece of legislation. A headline on a recent article from Trevor Tombe says, “How Alberta can benefit from a provincial carbon tax”. He believes, “Whatever your priorities, using carbon tax revenues to achieve them requires Alberta [to] take back control.” Alberta could and should take back control because of the opportunity that lies ahead with respect to renewable energies in that province.
We know that the Premier of Alberta has put a moratorium on the approval of new renewable energy projects in Alberta, which is a shame because Alberta is leading the country. It is an energy-rich province. Regardless of whether they come from the sun, underground or ideas above the ground, renewable resources from across the province are available. Unfortunately, the premier does not believe in renewable energy, but Canadians do. Albertans, Miltonians and Ontarians want us to address climate change.
I know that I have repeated this a number of times in the House, but it bears repeating again: All members from the Conservative Party ran on a promise to price carbon. Under Erin O'Toole, the Conservatives ran on a promise to develop a strategy to price carbon. It was a Zellers catalogue of green products that people could choose from. I believe “the more you burn, the more you earn” was the motto. I recognize that Canadians rejected that proposal. Canadians listed climate change and fighting it as one of their top priorities in the last federal election.
I would also note my friend the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills. During his leadership campaign for Conservative Party leader, he said very rightly that there is no way to win a federal election without having a plan to fight climate change. That is why, in his infinite wisdom, MP O'Toole ran on a promise to price carbon. My friend and colleague, the MP for Calgary Shepard, did also.
With the costs of climate change rising dramatically year over year, a climate plan to make life more affordable and fight climate change needs to be the cornerstone of any serious effort to make sure that Canadians can afford to heat their homes and make sure that we transition away from fossil fuels. If we ignore climate change, by 2025 we could see a $25-billion annual slowdown in our economic growth. Being somebody who is very attuned to the economy, my colleague opposite cares about economic growth. Our climate plan is not just about the environment; it is a plan for economic stability as well.
Another thing the Conservatives love to ignore about our climate plan and our carbon pricing mechanism is that it sends more money back to the vast majority of people. It is a choice of the Alberta government, the Ontario government and other governments to use the federal backstop program. Before 2018, Ontario, for example, had a cap and trade program whereby the provincial government traded carbon credits with other jurisdictions. It was able to generate considerable revenue from that. Given that the future of Alberta is a green one, I would urge my colleague and friend opposite to go to his premier and the ministers of energy and natural resources to encourage them to roll back their moratorium on renewable projects and pursue more—
659 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 5:27:58 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 5:28:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has not answered the substance of my question.
The moratorium that has been announced is based on an ASO technical report of experts, and 13 projects have been suspended. That is it, as for what has been impacted. This is also temporary.
I will draw the parliamentary secretary's attention back to the legal arguments that have been undone by the government. The carve-out is based on the source and type of fuel that people are using to heat their homes. In this case, it is heating oil. However, in the argument presented by the government before the Supreme Court of Canada, the indivisibility of the source of the pollutants was in question, so if they are all over Canada and we tax them all equally, it is constitutional. Because the government created this carve-out, it lends itself to the charge that now the tax is unconstitutional. The parliamentary secretary has not addressed this.
My constituents are still suffering from a higher carbon tax than Canadians have in Atlantic Canada. How can he consider that fair?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 5:29:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite acknowledged that this plan to change the way we price carbon with respect to home heating oil is specific to the product and not the region, which is what we have been saying. It is a national program.
I know that there are many Albertans and many folks who live in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia who still use home heating oil to heat their homes. Home heating oil is not just the most expensive way to heat one's home, it is also the most carbon intensive. It is a dirty product, and it is outdated. It is the way people used to heat their homes in the late 1800s. It is basically more similar to diesel and kerosene fuel than other products, which are far cleaner.
Saskatchewan is greening its grid. Alberta is greening its grid, and Manitoba already has one of the greenest grids. It is far more economic and sustainable to heat one's home with electric technology, such as a cold air heat pump, which is one that they would employ in Alberta. However, there are still many Albertans who are using home heating oil, and that is sort of the low-hanging fruit.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
