Debates of April 18th, 2024

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to go look at the plastics and, unfortunately, the garbage that is on her coasts and to do a little investigating on where it is coming from.

We know that 95% of the garbage comes from 10 rivers, eight of which are found in Asia and two of which are in Africa. There is not a plastic issue from Canadian consumers. It is from developing worlds that do not have a waste management program.

As for people with disabilities, they have made a loophole whereby if one goes into a store to ask for a plastic straw and asks really nicely and winks twice, they will look underneath their counter and there might be a box of plastic straws.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-380, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, regarding plastic manufactured items, introduced by the member for Saskatoon—University, whom we just heard from.

If passed, Bill C-380 would remove “plastic manufactured items” from the list of toxic substances in schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, as it is more commonly known.

We unequivocally oppose this bill. It would eliminate the legislative basis underpinning the regulatory actions the government has taken and is taking under CEPA to prevent plastic pollution. The vast majority of Canadians are concerned about plastic pollution and they expect our government to act.

In 2021, a survey found that over 90% of Canadians expressed concern about the impact that plastic pollution has on oceans and wildlife. In late 2023, a survey from the Angus Reid Institute revealed that most Canadians felt that a single-use plastic ban is an effective means to reduce plastic waste.

We know that plastic pollution is everywhere in the environment, posing the threat of harm to wildlife and damaging their habitats. Scientific findings support this conclusion. The government's 2020 science assessment provides a summary of peer-reviewed studies related to the effects of plastic pollution on organisms and their habitats. It confirms that plastic pollution is everywhere in the environment, including shorelines, surface waters, sediment, soil, groundwater, indoor and outdoor air, drinking water and food.

Statistics Canada's physical flow account for plastic material estimates that of the 4.9 million tonnes of discarded plastics in Canada in 2020, only a little over 7% of that was recycled into pellets and flakes for use in the production of new products, while over 40,000 tonnes ended up in the environment as pollution. That is why the government is taking regulatory action, as part of Canada's comprehensive zero plastic waste agenda, to eliminate certain harmful and problematic plastic products before they enter the marketplace.

The Government of Canada's zero plastic waste agenda also includes a wide range of measures aimed at reducing plastic pollution, enhancing value retention processes including reuse and recycling systems, minimizing single-use plastics, and fostering a circular economy approach to plastic management. With a focus on collaboration between government, industry and stakeholders, we are making meaningful and substantive progress. Implementing measures to prevent plastic pollution from single-use plastics is a common-sense approach.

This preventative approach is reflected in the government's single-use plastics prohibition regulations. These regulations, published in June 2022, phase out certain single-use plastics that are commonly found in the environment as pollution, pose a threat to wildlife and their habitats, are difficult to recycle and have readily available alternatives.

Over the next decade, it is estimated that these regulations will eliminate over 1.3 million tonnes of hard-to-recycle plastic waste and more than 22,000 tonnes of plastic pollution, which is equivalent to over a million garbage bags full of litter. These regulations have spurred businesses across Canada to elevate their efforts and successfully transition to sustainable alternatives, including the adoption of reusable items.

Provinces and territories are also providing important leadership in improving the management of plastic waste and diverting plastic waste from landfills. Across Canada, many municipalities, including major cities such as Montreal, St. John's, Edmonton and Victoria, have either banned single-use plastic checkout bags outright or are charging a fee to discourage their use.

Bill C-380 arrives in the House for debate at an interesting moment. Next week, Canada will welcome the world to the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, or INC4. This is a pivotal moment for Canada and the world as countries meet to negotiate a new global agreement on plastics. Canada, from the start of the negotiations, has called for an ambitious and effective treaty that addresses the life cycle of plastics. We want to see negotiations conclude this year so that countries can move forward on implementation.

To ensure that we take an evidence-based approach and measure progress over time, we are advancing a federal plastics registry. The registry, the first of its kind in the world, would require plastics producers to report annually on the quantity and types of plastic they place on the Canadian market. This would facilitate the design, implementation and monitoring of measures aimed at addressing plastic pollution that are part of the zero plastic waste agenda, and it would help to identify areas where further action is required.

We also recognize the importance of innovation in addressing plastic waste and preventing plastic pollution. Through the innovative solutions Canada program, we are supporting Canadian businesses to spur innovation and the development of technologies that address issues such as reuse and difficult-to-recycle film and flexible plastic.

Most recently, the government has contributed over $25 million to support small and medium-sized businesses in Canada to find innovative solutions to specific plastics issues. The government will continue engaging provinces, territories, civil society, indigenous partners, industry and other concrete initiatives to keep plastics out of the economy and out of the environment. A plastics circular economy would help strengthen sustainable economies and create jobs; it would help fight climate change by avoiding the production of virgin plastic in favour of approaches like recycling and reuse, and it would protect biodiversity and the environment.

In conclusion, federal leadership, via concrete regulatory action, is essential to effectively prevent plastic pollution. It is in the interests of Canadians and the environment that the listing of plastic manufactured items on schedule 1 of CEPA is critical to the important work we are doing, and it should be kept intact. It is essential that we oppose this bill.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑380 raises some worrisome doubts about the Conservative Party's position on a policy objective that is in the common interest and that is accepted by all departments of the environment in every province and territory, including Quebec.

This bill once again embodies the official opposition's denial of environmental issues, but especially its denial of everything that years of scientific work and research have analyzed and confirmed, namely four things. First, plastic pollution is a major environmental and health problem. Second, it is the result of the widespread use of plastic, especially for manufacturing single-use products. Third, whether it is in the form of visible waste, microplastics or nanoplastics, this pollution harms our ecosystems as well as biodiversity. It can also have adverse effects on health, particularly when it goes up the food chain and ends up in our food. Fourth, plastic pollution is present along our shorelines and in our surface waters, sediment, soil, groundwater, indoor and outdoor air, drinking water and food.

The author of the bill, the member for Saskatoon—University, makes a bold statement by claiming, and I am paraphrasing, that the management of plastic manufactured products has no positive impact on environmental protection and public health. This is patently false. I would almost describe this statement as abhorrent. No specialized scientific organization recognized in this field of research shares this position, not one. We might reasonably wonder whether the Conservatives have ever read a scientific study on this. To be clear, I am talking about independent studies carried out somewhere other than the labs at Dow Chemical or Imperial Oil.

Before I address another angle, I would like to clarify something right away, because members of the official opposition might try to say that the Bloc Québécois is not defending provincial jurisdictions. What Bill C‑380 seeks to do is invoke the alleged unconstitutionality of the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We all know that the federal government is appealing the Federal Court's decision to overturn the government's order on plastics, which the court found to be unconstitutional. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the government's approach for one simple reason, that is, because the Federal Court's decision was wrong, period. If an environmental policy were unconstitutional, of course the Bloc Québécois would immediately demand that the Government of Canada review that policy and respect the environmental sovereignty of Quebec and the provinces.

As a reminder, the Supreme Court already ruled in favour of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that prohibit “specific acts for the purpose of preventing pollution or, to put it in other terms, causing the entry into the environment of certain toxic substances”.

However, the Conservatives do not see the difference between reviewing a policy and completely abandoning a legitimate policy objective. Bill C‑380 proposes to completely eliminate the main regulatory measure that allows the government to act on the issue of single-use plastics.

It comes as no surprise to the Bloc Québécois that the official opposition is once again acting as the political valet of the oil and petrochemical lobby. I am saying that because Dow Chemical, Imperial Oil and Nova Chemicals are the ones that led the legal challenge against the regulations.

I am sorry, but no good will come of rejecting science, denying the evidence and filling the legislative agenda with the concerns of companies that want the status quo or, even worse, full deregulation.

Let us look back on what the government has done. In 2019, it made an ambitious announcement about banning the use of some single-use plastics. In October 2020, it announced its intention to impose standards to make plastic manufacturers accountable when it comes to the collection and recycling of plastic waste. Then, the environment minister at the time, the current Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced, with great fanfare, the goal of achieving zero plastic waste by 2030. That was a good intention, an honourable desire, but it was just an announcement, nothing more.

The government had promised to bring this regulation into force as early as 2021. However, as has been the case with other issues where the government has lacked ambition and not taken action, they blamed the pandemic, that old scapegoat. That said, the government did not lack ambition or action during the pandemic when it came to prioritizing the interests of the fossil fuel sector. It subsidized oil companies in the name of fighting climate change, granted new multibillion-dollar loans for Trans Mountain and authorized exploratory offshore drilling without impact assessments and in marine refuges it had created itself, to name just a few.

Today, the restrictions in force are very incomplete. They cover only six of the hundreds of items in the economy. As far as exports are concerned, no ban on manufacturing or sales will be in force before December 20, 2025, in other words, after the government's current term of office. In our opinion, this is already a rather half-hearted regulation, and I sometimes doubt that it will be enforced. Liberal policies are certainly not up to the task of providing solutions to the growing and worrying problems of plastic pollution, but the Conservative stance on this global issue is damning in its denial of what is basically obvious—namely, that the use of plastics, and consequently its waste, has reached dizzying, even stratospheric heights.

According to every credible and independent source, items made of plastic were considered a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act precisely because the scientific literature proved it. As far as the temptation to talk about recycling is concerned, I would remind the House that the data from 2016 show that Canada recycles only 9% of plastic waste, that 86% ends up in landfills, that 4% is incinerated and that 1% end up in nature. There is no circular economy here.

Recognizing the problem may lead us part-way to the solution. However, let us be clear: the challenge before us is first to recognize that we must act predictably and firmly and then oppose any hint of deregulation with respect to the existing framework. Reusing, remanufacturing, repairing, prioritizing the use of renewable energy in the process of using the material: these priorities alone would guide us to healthy public policies on plastics.

Thanks to the expertise of Recyc‑Québec and its recycling facilities, Quebec is already engaged in a process aimed at moving away from the linear extractivist economic model that the Conservatives hold dear and that also seems to suit the government just fine. Recyc‑Québec has made the circular economy its priority. In Quebec, we value the principle of extended producer responsibility, under which the responsibility for managing end-of-life products lies with the companies that produce them.

I will close by quoting Michael Burt, vice-president and global director of climate and energy policy at Dow Canada, in an appearance before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on the issue of single-use plastics. I talked about Dow Canada's expertise in industrial chemistry and engineering, and I said that there was no doubt that Dow Canada could contribute to advancing the circular economy or developing something innovative. When I asked him if he intended to transition away from virgin resin production, he slowly leaned towards the microphone, maintained eye contact with me and, without hesitation, replied no. He also said, “The reality is that the world doesn't have a plastic problem, but it definitely has a plastic-waste problem. ...The reality is that, from an investment standpoint, Dow Canada is a profitable company.” I think his remarks were clear.

How can the production of plastics possibly be separated from their existence as waste? Mr. Burt's statement speaks volumes, does it not? One thing is certain. By introducing Bill C‑380, the official opposition wins the prize for being this major lobby group's legislative representative.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand up and speak to this bill. I have to admit it is a little disheartening to hear how the mover of this motion started his speech this evening. However, it is also not surprising from a party that continues to deny that there are environmental issues that need to be addressed in a timely manner in order to protect our futures and the future generations to come.

We heard the member speak about paper straws, make jokes about the sogginess of them and ask who really liked paper straws. I understand they are inconvenient, but my goodness, let us talk about the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is that we have plastic pollution that is destroying our marine ecosystems and is destroying the health and well-being of people across the country.

The real problem is around plastics that are polluting our planet and being ingested through marine ecosystems. It goes into the entire ecosystem and then into us, creating health implications. Instead of talking about the real issues at hand, the member was deflecting and talking about soggy straws.

I think this is exactly what is to be expected from my colleagues in the Conservative Party: a consistent deflection from the issues at hand. The member even went so far as to say that banning plastics is bad for health, bad for pocketbooks and bad for the environment. I am floored to hear this.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members to not be heckling or trying to make points while someone else has the floor. I am sure the member was not disturbed while he was speaking, and I am sure that he would want to return that respect during other people's speeches.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, instead of what was shared in the prior member's speech, we know that regulating plastics is essential to addressing the harms of plastic, especially of single-use plastics, that are caused to our ecosystem, human health, the environment and even our climate. This is what we should be talking about.

We know that plastics are polluting our oceans at a fast rate. The impacts are horrific. As the critic for fisheries and oceans, and a West Coaster, previously an East Coaster, but now on Vancouver Island, I know that, in Canada, we are seeing the impacts of plastic pollution in so many ways.

One such example that comes to mind is from when I was first elected and we had the Zim Kingston freighter spill along the coast of Vancouver Island. I believe there were over 100 containers spilled, and only four of those containers were recovered. The rest were left to sink along the shores of Vancouver Island. In these containers were a variety of items, many of them plastic.

A year after the spill, there was a story by the CBC, entitled “From urinal mats to unicorns, cargo from major container spill is still washing up on B.C. shores”. I will ask members to imagine walking down the shoreline of our beautiful coastal Vancouver Island and there are these pink inflatable unicorns washing up on the shore. I do not know if everybody here has had an opportunity to visit our beautiful coastline, but most certainly, pink plastic unicorns are not a part of our natural marine ecosystem. It is quite the opposite. There is a tremendous negative impact to our environment when these plastic unicorns and urinal mats break down into microplastics and get into our marine life. The exact seafood we are eating is full of microplastics, and the cycle continues.

We need to be addressing this plastic pollution in all ways. One being that, if marine cargo spills continue to happen, there needs to be a strategy in place to make sure we are integrating local knowledge to put a response plan in place immediately. I hope we will see some of these things from the Liberal government in due time.

With that, I would like to speak about a new disease that has been found. There is an article by the National Audubon Society, a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats, entitled “Plastic Pollution Is So Pervasive That It’s Causing a New Disease in Seabirds”. This new disease is “marked by severe stomach damage from eating little bits of plastic”. The damage is tremendous to these birds that are ingesting these plastics. It is scraping their organs, causing “several knock-on health effects”. It makes the birds “feel less hungry.” There is also “less room for nutrients.” It is scarring their stomachs, creating less flexibility, “so birds are able to transport less fish back to the nest.” The article explains how the “damaged organ creates less digestive acid to process food and protect against parasites.”

With that, I would like to point out that the impacts of the plastic pollution disproportionately impact many indigenous communities across Canada. A constituent in my riding, from whom I have not received permission to talk about this, but I know he will be very excited for me to do so because he talks about it at all times, has been very focused on gathering and providing detailed information around the location of city dumps and how close in proximity they are, consistently, to first nations. We know these dumps are places where plastics are brought.

I would like to finish by saying that constituents in my riding are reaching out, asking for the Minister of Environment to deal with plastic pollution, and are calling on him to take action on plastics in Canada to address the adverse human health outcomes linked with chemicals of concern in the cradle-to-grave cycle of plastics. This includes a few points: a just and equitable treaty, and national policies that respect human rights; limit global production of plastics; eliminate unnecessary plastic products; prioritize the prohibition of hazardous chemicals of concern; prioritize immediate action to address people vulnerable to exposure; and ensure that business respects the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Despite the Conservatives' attempt to ensure that our planet is burning, that our planet is polluted and that people are not provided with strong solutions to move forward, I would ask that we take the actions necessary to put an end to plastic pollution.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, a lot of people are a bit surprised, but maybe not so surprised, that the Conservative Party is going against policy here in Canada, but there are many countries around the world that are moving toward the banning, for example, of plastic bags. That is the question I had posed to the member opposite. The Conservative Party wants to take some backward steps in regard to the environment and to go around the world saying that they care about the environment, when other countries around the world are in fact taking actions. Many countries have banned it, and many of them are actually in the process.

I will continue on, the next time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do apologize. That is twice in one day for the hon. parliamentary secretary. I am so sorry.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Safety

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight on a very important issue.

In November of last year, a 12-year-old child committed suicide in British Columbia, after being the victim of online sexual extortion. The Liberal government has known that this has been a growing problem during the entirety of its nearly nine-year mandate and has taken no action to address this issue. It has gotten worse, and more children have been victimized. It is not just children who are the victims of extortion, and it does not just happen online, but I want to specifically address the extortion of children in Canada, particularly sexual extortion.

This is a federal problem. The gaps in the Criminal Code that allow these criminals to operate are in the federal jurisdiction. The RCMP, which is responsible for catching these organized criminals, is federal. The Prime Minister passed federal Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. On top of this, he brought into place very detrimental, very poor bail reform, with Bill C-75, which makes it easier for offenders to get back on our streets.

Instead of reacting in a way that would address these gaps, the federal government has proposed a very large bureaucracy that is extrajudicial, that has no costing associated with it, that does not have a set timeline for coming into force and that would be subject to regulations that would not be built for years down the road. That is opposed to supporting common-sense measures, like establishing increased mandatory sentences for criminals convicted of extortion; bringing in five-year prison sentences for any criminal convicted of extortion who is acting on behalf of gangs, and there could be modifiers for cases of children; also restoring mandatory four-year prison sentences for the offence of extortion with a firearm; making arson an aggravating factor for the charge of extortion; and reversing the damage done by Bill C-75.

There are other things the government could be doing as well. We know that the problem of bringing people to justice, for any crime in Canada, but certainly for serious criminal issues, has been a problem since the government took office because the government has not been appointing judges. Across the country, there is a lack of judges. That lack of the ability of the government to appoint judges, coupled with Jordan's principle, has created this system where essentially the criminals act without any sort of deterrent.

I am just wondering why the government has chosen this “kick the can farther down the road” approach to dealing with child online sexual extortion, as opposed to closing loopholes in the Criminal Code and ensuring that there are adequate resources and tools for law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to bring criminals to justice.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, the member certainly could consider supporting the government's online harms bill, which I think is a major piece of legislation that certainly will help to protect minors and children when they are interacting online.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak about the ongoing threat of extortion in Canada. The Government of Canada is deeply concerned about Canadians who are victimized by acts of extortion and related violence. The Government of Canada is aware of growing concerns related to extortion across the country and, indeed, the government has heard directly from the mayors of Surrey, British Columbia; Edmonton, Alberta; and Brampton, Ontario, about how this is impacting their communities.

The recent increase in the number and severity of extortion attempts, particularly targeting members of Canada's South Asian community are alarming. The Government of Canada and the RCMP encourage anyone experiencing or witnessing extortion to report it to their local police of jurisdiction and discourage anyone from complying with demands for money.

Rest assured, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and Canadian interests against these threats. We are taking concrete action to protect all affected communities across Canada.

As Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is mandated to prevent, detect and investigate serious organized crime, in order to protect Canadians and Canadian interests. In doing so, the RCMP works closely with domestic and international law enforcement partners to share information and target shared threats. The RCMP and its law enforcement partners across the country have observed an increase in the number of extortion crimes taking place and are working collaboratively to investigate these incidents.

While the RCMP cannot comment on specific investigations, I can confirm that significant coordination is under way across the country to address similar types of extortion attempts directed at the South Asian communities in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. While many investigations remain ongoing, a number of arrests have been made, and information sharing across agencies, I would say, is imperative, as coordinated efforts are under way to identify cases that may be related to one another.

To this end, the RCMP is actively sharing information with local law enforcement to support their ongoing efforts.

Rest assured, law enforcement agencies across the country are utilizing the required tools and resources to combat these serious incidents in order to keep Canadians safe.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill that my colleague opposite mentioned, with regard to child online sexual exploitation and extortion, requires that social media operators submit plans to a yet-to-be-created bureaucracy about how they will protect children.

Why would, at a minimum, the government not require these plans to be posted for everyone to see or for law enforcement to inspect? Why not have maximum transparency on it and why not do it now?

Also, why not close loopholes in the Criminal Code and strengthen the Criminal Code to prevent this from happening right now? Why a bureaucracy?

Why tell people to go to a complaints department instead of the police?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I have said, the Government of Canada is committed to taking a collaborative approach to address the ongoing threat of extortion in Canada.

Nationwide collaboration is under way to address similar types of extortion attempts directed at South Asian communities and others across the country. Investigators have access to the resources, tools and supports necessary to advance these investigations and hold those responsible accountable. We know that the Conservatives have voted against $80 million in support of the work of the RCMP, which is truly tragic when one considers what the member is asking for, which is greater enforcement of the law.

Clearly the RCMP now have the resources as a result of our government's work, and the collaborative efforts they are making are having a positive impact.

Finance

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Canadians in the frugal riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Recently I asked the NDP-Liberal coalition if they would adopt a dollar-for-dollar rule for this week's budget. It is a common-sense rule where a government finds a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. It would allow government to focus resources where they are most needed without stoking inflation. The response from the President of the Treasury Board was embarrassing. More than embarrassing, it was sad and pathetic.

Her response was the parliamentary equivalent of the classic schoolyard taunt, “I know you are, but what am I?”

There is something about this so-called feminist Prime Minister's government that takes smart, accomplished, professional women from the private sector and turns them into shallow, glib bobble-head dolls in Parliament. If they are lucky, like Jane and Jody, they get out before the Prime Minister demands they shred their integrity. If they are unlucky, they work hard in a given portfolio, only to be demoted when they start getting better press than the Prime Minister.

I imagine that is why the President of the Treasury Board decided to ignore a policy question and reply with a lazy partisan attack. She needs to get back into the good graces of the inner circle. Any display of independent thought by any minister in the government risks bringing down the wrath of Katie, but falling in line and following orders is something the minister is especially skilled at. How else could we explain that someone could serve as defence minister, receive a first-hand look at the dire state of military readiness, then go on to cut billions from the defence budget?

That is right, the President of the Treasury Board is leading a program review. They are cutting spending from national security priorities so they can increase spending on Liberal re-election priorities. It is not quite a dollar-for-dollar policy. It is more of a “borrow $10 for a dollar” policy or, more accurately, a “borrow a trillion dollars” policy. They have borrowed so much money that the cost to finance their mountain of debt is more than what we spend on health care. The interest payments are more than all the tax collected through the GST. Incredibly, as if to fulfill the prophecy of Oedipus Rex, the Prime Minister has done in nine years what it took his father 16 years to accomplish.

Pierre Trudeau left Canada in such an economic hole, it took another 16 years to dig us out. Because of the government's historic levels of secrecy, utter lack of transparency and deceptive bookkeeping, Canadians do not know how deep this hole is. That is because, more and more, it appears as if this socialist coalition has adopted a kamikaze strategy.

They know Canadians want a change. They know Canadians are tired of the corrupt, arrogant, preachy, self righteous Prime Minister. They know no amount of new spending is going to improve their poll numbers. They know this, yet their strategy is damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. The socialist coalition started us on a slow run to insolvency, but now they are in a full sprint. This reckless spending is not achieving positive results. The more they spend, the less Canadians can afford.

Before the parliamentary secretary rises to read Katie Telford's latest talking points, I just want to remind them that the question I asked was not a partisan question, but a straightforward policy one. All the experts Liberals love to quote said that more spending fuels inflation, so I ask this again: Will the government cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down inflation?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the very entertaining diatribe she went on. The member opposite claims that she is not being partisan, but every part of her comments today seemed like a partisan attack. I know she specializes in conspiracy theories on her nightly news show, but I will endeavour to answer her question. Before I do, I will just clarify something on the defence spending. Obviously the member has not taken the time to read the document yet, but budget 2024 includes considerable increases to defence spending.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the work our government is doing to address affordability issues in Canada, while continuing to manage our country's finances responsibly. First of all, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that Canada has the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7, which is recognized in our AAA credit rating. Canadians know how important it is to manage a budget responsibly in the face of rising costs, and that is exactly what we are doing. As noted by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance when she tabled the budget earlier this week, we are maintaining our fiscal anchor. Our federal debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to decline over the medium term.

In budget 2024, our government is moving forward with measures that foster the kind of economic growth that will enable every generation of Canadians to reach their full potential. For example, budget 2024 includes many ambitious measures to address the housing crisis. We want to ensure that people, especially young people, are better able to pay their rent or mortgage. To do this, we are investing in building more rental apartments and more affordable housing from coast to coast to coast. We are topping up the housing accelerator fund and making it easier for Canadian homeowners to add a basement suite or a laneway house so middle-class Canadians can be part of the housing solution too.

For first-time home buyers, we will be extending the maximum amortization period of a mortgage to 30 years on new builds, including condos. We are also making changes to ensure that renters who pay on time can have the rent payment count toward their credit history when it comes time to get a mortgage. This means lower monthly payments and greater opportunity for young people to buy their first home.

We are also moving forward with measures to make life in Canada cost less. Inflation is now way down, and in fact, it now has been back within the Bank of Canada's target range for three months in a row. We said we would continue to invest in Canadians, reasonably manage our finances and control inflation, and that is exactly what we are doing.

We understand that many Canadians, especially younger people, need support. That is why we are making transformational enhancements to Canada's social safety net. That social safety net is being increased through $10-a-day child care, the Canadian dental care plan, a national drug insurance plan and, now, a national school food program, which I am very proud to see in the federal budget.

These are just a few of the measures we are putting forward to help Canadians.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

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.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a plan to drive the kind of economic growth that will ensure every generation of Canadians can reach their full potential. It is a plan to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance to build a good, middle-class life in Canada.

The government believes in investing in Canadians and in creating economic growth, not in cuts and austerity as the Conservatives do. We are building a modern economy with jobs for the future and are investing today so the generations of tomorrow can have a fair shot at success.

Canadians can count on our government to make life more affordable, while continuing to manage our public finances responsibly, and that is what we are proposing in budget 2024. It is about fairness for every generation and an economy that works for all Canadians.

Climate Change

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member knows that she is to address all questions and comments through the Chair and not speak directly to the member.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

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—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are no points of order. The hon. member will have a chance to do a rebuttal. If she had a question of privilege that would be different, but at this time there are no points of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

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.