- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Green Party
- Saanich—Gulf Islands
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $201,868.20
- Government Page
- May/30/24 4:05:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary referred earlier in his speech to the origins of the B.C. carbon tax. Having been involved, I was amazed to find that a fairly right wing premier in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, came up with a letter perfect, academically rigorous, revenue-neutral carbon tax, driven, as he was, by the disaster of the loss of the forests of interior B.C. due to climate change. It is a longer story, but this was due to the pine beetle assault because we lost our cold snaps in winter. Just to wrap it up, Gordon Campbell would have been defeated in that election, but the NDP in B.C. ran a campaign against him called “axe the tax”, and because British Columbians supported the carbon tax, he was re-elected.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 3:09:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, and contrary to what the Minister of Environment just said, Canada is not on track to meet our target for 2030, which is expressed to the United Nations as 40% to 45% below 2005 levels, only conveniently forgetting the range into 45%.
On top of that, we are still spending more money to support fossil fuels than to decarbonize: $34 billion on Trans Mountain; another $5.7 billion on fraud, carbon capture and storage; and under-spending when the government promised it was going to spend money on climate. We are at least $14 billion behind that promise.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:03:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend from Lakeland was asking rhetorically if the word “treason” was too strong. Let me just put on the record the word “treason” is far too strong.
For my dear friend from Lakeland, I do not think anyone would ever imagine the MP for Lakeland was cowering. We are friends but we do not agree on this.
Let me just point out the many ways in which I found her speech varied. From my understanding, there is a global shift away from fossil fuels. The recent report from the International Energy Agency verifies that of energy spending globally, renewables are increasing the pace at which they are a greater investment globally, and this is an investment for people who want to make money on their investments, than investments in fossil fuels. Germany reached the lowest level of coal use in its history, while having renewables over 50% last year. Sweden brought in a climate carbon tax in 1991 and has expanded it.
Let us try to agree on shared facts and movement about climate action.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:54:04 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Jonquière.
I think that the Conservative motion gives us a good opportunity to explain to Canadians what is really happening with the climate crisis. The reality is that, when a provincial Conservative premier testified in committee, he gave the government good arguments in favour of the carbon tax. In fact, the testimony the Conservative premiers gave as to why they are against carbon pricing did not make any sense.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite those who are opposed to policies that work to come and explain why they are in favour of doing nothing.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:56:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have very little to add because I absolutely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague.
I think it is important to point out that the debates we have here about carbon pricing are almost futile compared to the critical issue of the climate change threat. At the moment, we know that there is no greater threat, except perhaps that of nuclear war.
We need to do more. We need to have debates based on science, evidence and the reality of our current situation, which is so serious for our children and grandchildren.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 1:50:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to set aside the comments on what has dominated in this place, which are carbon pricing and proper solutions to the climate crisis. I wonder if my hon. friend does not agree that the well-being of every single Canadian, as she exhorted in her speech, includes that we face the fact that there is a very worrying fuel load across the country in our forests. The forest fires of summer 2023 continue to burn underground and under the snow and are called zombie fires. The oceans have hit temperature increases we have never seen before.
I ask her this: Is she also committed to finding climate solutions that work?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 5:56:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address the House virtually this evening and to pursue a matter I first raised in question period late last year, on October 27, 2023. It deals with an issue that is of concern to many Canadians, just at the time when Canadians are feeling pain at the pumps. While I know my colleagues on the Conservative side of the House think that it is due to the carbon tax, it is far more due to the excess profits being experienced by the oil and gas sector. A minuscule impact is from carbon pricing.
There is a pin on my jacket to show that we stand with Ukraine. Ever since Putin invaded Ukraine, that has had a very serious impact on fossil fuel prices globally. It has been to the benefit of large fossil fuel companies, and they are reaping extraordinary, record-breaking profits in the tens of billions of dollars every month all around the world. It would be fantastic if our sanctions against Russia bit deeply enough to mean that selling Russian oil would become off limits, but we know that many countries continue to buy Russian oil.
The modest proposal I raised in question period comes from the hon. colleague from Kitchener Centre, who has put forward Motion No. 92 to put an excess profits tax on oil and gas as is currently done for insurance companies and banks. It is a very reasonable proposal to apply the Canada recovery dividend to fossil fuel companies.
This particular proposal, Motion No. 92, has been reviewed, and the benefit to the Canadian treasury has been calculated by the Parliamentary Budget Office at over $4 billion. In other words, those are funds we could be receiving as a nation from excess profits. As Eric Reguly in the business pages of The Globe and Mail noted some time ago, these profits are not based on business acumen or sound planning or great management by the oil and gas sector; they are pure and simple war profiteering. That is what they are. The companies are making a lot of money as Ukrainians face the brutality of Putin's regime.
Other countries are applying excess profits tax at much higher levels than what is proposed by my colleague in Motion No. 92. In fact, Motion No. 92 itself points out that the United Kingdom is charging excess profits tax at a level of 25% and generating £5 billion; and Europe is charging excess profits tax at 21%. This modest proposal, using the same Canada recovery benefit that is currently being applied to banking and insurance, would be at 15%.
While I cannot say he answered my question, when the hon. Minister of Environment responded to it, he spoke of other things the government is doing. He did not speak of the finance question at all. Why are we not taxing the excess profits of the oil and gas sector at the very time that it is reaping extraordinary rewards in war profiteering? The oil and gas companies are also hiking prices at the pump and profiteering from price gouging.
The time is certainly overdue to ensure that we bring in the profits from the oil and gas industry, through proper taxation, to national revenues so that they could be used on such things as the disability tax credit. Then, the poorest of the poor in this country could receive additional financial support in this time when we are all feeling the pinch from the affordability crisis. I hope the parliamentary secretary will provide a better answer than the minister did.
604 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:03:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to rise today to explain the many reasons why the Green Party will be voting against today's opposition motion, but I would like to ask my friend from Kingston and the Islands to comment on this. We had an earlier exchange about whether enforcing the carbon tax or raising the carbon tax could stop fires and floods. The answer from science is clear that it cannot.
We cannot turn back what has happened to the atmosphere with respect to atmospheric chemistry and physics, but we can avoid runaway global warming, the kind that self-accelerates and becomes unstoppable. We must not stoke the furnace further on future warming to destroy the lives of our children, which is why we need carbon pricing, and we need more to reduce emissions much more quickly.
Does my my hon. colleague have any comments on that?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:00:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the debate on home heating, sometimes people express a belief that natural gas is more environmentally friendly than heating oil. That is not true. For the most part, natural gas is shale gas. The method for producing shale gas leaves a bigger carbon footprint than heating oil. It is not a good choice for our climate.
Can my colleague comment on the issue of the carbon footprint of shale gas?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 1:51:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to something that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was discussing, and that is the impact of the carbon tax on inflation and the numbers that have been found.
I noted, as to the member's comment, that the impact of carbon pricing has been up to two cents a litre, but the impact due to war profiteering from the oil and gas sector has been up to 18¢ a litre. Does he have any comments on that?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Sarnia that it is important to distinguish the measures that reduce emissions, or at least provide a break with respect to growing emissions, from the global phenomenon. Overall, Canada's record is one of failure under successive governments to reduce emissions. In Copenhagen, the previous government under Stephen Harper promised to reduce emissions, but it failed to do so; emissions went up. Similarly, in Paris in 2015, the government under the current Prime Minister pledged to reduce emissions, but they have gone up.
The individual use, particularly by the Province of British Columbia, in bringing in place a carbon price initially held emissions and reduced them. That was contaminated by the provincial NDP government when it changed the way our revenue-neutral carbon tax worked in B.C.
However, the global phenomenon of increased emissions and global warming has what is referred to as a feedback loop. This is something the member for Sarnia—Lambton did not identify. Burning forests add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but those burning forests are themselves caused by the carbon dioxide we already added to the atmosphere. One cannot attach that to a policy tool used in one jurisdiction and call it a failure. We really need carbon pricing, and it needs to go up.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:59:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect that is really important. As I have been a climate activist since 1986, it bears mentioning that my biggest carbon footprint is getting to work. I do appreciate a chance not to have to fly. It definitely takes a toll. Jet lag definitely takes a toll and flying is physically exhausting, but I love being here. As far as I am concerned, I am on the freedom 85 plan, folks, and I am not going anywhere.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right when he references the fact that Canada raced to the bottom of industrialized countries in terms of our climate performance.
In fact, throughout the previous Conservative government and the current, since 2015, Liberal government, no federal government has gotten the direction right. They set reduction targets for carbon; however, with the exception of the 2008 financial crisis when carbon went down and the 2019-20 difference over COVID, without a pandemic or economic collapse no government has gotten the direction right to start bringing emissions down.
There are ways to reduce emissions that do not involve carbon pricing. I happen to support carbon pricing. It is a necessary but insufficient condition.
What would this member recommend that we do to reduce emissions rapidly?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:57:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I am profoundly sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, because it is an important speech, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Bill S-5.
Bill S-5 deals with toxic chemicals, and with six different parts, none touch on carbon pricing; none are about Russia, Ukraine or climate. Bill S-5 is a different bill altogether. This is an important speech, but there is no relevance to Bill S-5.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 1:51:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, obviously I would disagree with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, and so would some members of his caucus, who favour carbon pricing.
I want to correct the record, because, I am sure unintentionally, he has misstated the progress Germany has made in reducing greenhouse gases. He used the claim that 70% of Germany's electricity was still coming from fossil fuels. It is too high, but it is 30%. Renewables represent 50% of Germany's electricity grid. The result is that, yes, it is true, Germans pay very high prices for energy, but they have reduced greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels, while Canada is 20% above 1990 levels. Therefore, we should have another look at Germany's path.
I want to expand on something the hon. member talked about, which is the capacity of Environment Canada to meet the challenges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in Bill S-5. There was an observations paper that was attached to the amendment from the Senate. I would ask whether the member for Dufferin—Caledon noted that in that observation paper the Senate asks whether the government will expand resources to Environment Canada to be able to fulfill the act's promise.
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 4:33:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, in my riding, one of the reasons that local businesses have to close earlier and more often is that there is no affordable housing for workers to come in and use. A very real concern of local businesses in my riding is that places that used to rent to summer students and workers are no longer available because they are Airbnbs, so we can pursue that conversation later.
Meanwhile, the difficulty with carbon capture and storage is that it works far less than advertised. It can sequester some carbon, but in no project around the world has it ever met its goals or targets. It is about the most expensive way, and one of the less reliable ways, to do what is needed to be done reliably, quickly and affordably.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 12:19:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the idea that we should be cancelling the increase in the carbon tax because of its impact on Canadians.
Just to review some reality that we have not had injected yet, as of tomorrow, the carbon tax impact for a litre of gas will be 2.2¢ a litre. However, because of the global instability and because of what is happening in Ukraine and with the lockdowns in China, gas prices have had volatility of up to 32¢ in the last month in the GTA, and yes, we have gas experts predicting it will drop by 15¢ because of increased supplies from the opening up of reserves.
I see the increase in the gas tax for the purpose of adding to the carbon price as being so small as to be a blip in a sea of volatility. Can the hon. member comment?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 11:08:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary relates to the budget overall. I largely agree with his comments on carbon pricing. I agree with him that the British Columbia government was wrong to make the carbon price in British Columbia less than revenue-neutral.
I meant to begin by saying that on Indigenous Languages Day, I wish to address the House in SENĆOŦEN, which is the language of the indigenous people of the territory I represent, the W̱SÁNEĆ people.
[Member spoke in SENĆOŦEN]
[English]
To the parliamentary secretary, how do the Liberals credibly claim that we are to forget their renunciation of the F-35 fighter jets? Why are we supposed to be spending $19 billion on a plane that former Liberal leader Bob Rae, now doing us such honour as our ambassador to the United Nations, pointed out was completely operationally the wrong plane for Canada?
The former auditor general, the late Michael Ferguson, pointed out it was going to cost at least $25 billion in 2012. It is now 2022. It is not credible that we are going to spend $19 billion on a fighter jet that is wrong for Canada. How does the parliamentary secretary justify this betrayal?
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 6:21:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I think it is really important, and I agree with my friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, that we need to emphasize the carbon sequestration potential of grasslands and the preservation of grasslands. I do not want to get into a full debate on carbon taxes with the hon. member because Bill C-8 does not mention carbon taxes, except for trying to give farmers more of a rebate.
I also support, as does the hon. member who just spoke, the private member's bill to take the carbon tax off grain drying. The carbon tax program that the federal government put forward does exclude farmer's use of fossil fuels in the engines of cars and tractors, but not the grain drying. I think that was an oversight.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
