Debates of Oct. 31st, 2022

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In principle, I agree with the idea of a right to a healthy environment.

I also mentioned the problem with the designation of plastics as toxic in general. That is not something that is changed by the bill. It is a pre-existing problem regarding the intentions of the current government. As the member suggested, that is both a positive and a negative.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's discussion and points on the price of gasoline. The United States has to release information each week that shows the refining capacity and cost, which it allows consumers to look at. As well, even Donald Trump used the strategic petroleum reserve to try to influence the market to lower the price of gasoline.

I wonder whether he thinks that these are basically interventions in the market, or at least positions that we should maybe look at on the Canadian side, especially requiring the information to be released so Canadian consumers can follow the product from the refinery to the pump.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, unless the member disagrees with his party, he supports the idea of imposing increasingly higher taxes on gasoline, so I think it is contradictory of the New Democrats to say, on the one hand, that they want to impose taxes on gasoline, which are specifically designed to raise the price, but on the other hand maybe there is some other backdoor mechanism we can use to reduce the price.

I think they need to answer this question directly: Is their goal higher gas prices or lower gas prices? If it is higher gas prices, they should own it and admit it. If they want lower gas prices, I have a simple solution, which is to stop increasing the carbon tax. If we want gas prices to be lower, then we can reduce or remove the tax that is specifically designed, as it is currently structured, to increase that price. That should be fairly straightforward and simple. If we did not have a carbon tax, maybe we could ask what else we could do to lower the price, but let us first be honest about the fact that his party is pushing for a policy designed to increase the price of gas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity today to address something that this bill does not look at whatsoever and something I do not think the House has addressed in any form of debate yet. I would encourage my colleagues to listen to me because what I am about to present is something this entire place will be seized with for many years to come.

What I am worried about this bill failing to address is two things. Number one is that we are seeing global greenhouse gas emissions rise at rapid rates, in spite of global policy that has been considered dogma for the last several years, so we do not have a solution to climate change. This bill does not address that. I am also very worried that some of the failings of the climate policy the world has put forward, particularly the Liberal climate policy, is setting us up toward a potential reset of the geopolitical order away from western democracies and in favour of autocracies.

This bill fails to address a question that I really want every person in the House to listen to. What happens if Russia, which is engaged in a barbaric war of aggression against Ukraine, does not ever turn the taps back on to Europe? That is a question that people are not asking themselves right now, and it is a problem. The prevailing wisdom right now in many corners is that, at some point, western sanctions on Russia for its war of aggression against Ukraine is going to break Russia and the ensuing fallout will lead to Russia turning the taps back on to Europe and everything kind of going back to normal.

I am very concerned that is not the case and that our environmental policy in Canada is failing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and we are now no longer at the point where we are just talking about the runaway inflation that people are addressing. I am worried about the effect on western democracy. This is not hyperbole, and I would like to briefly lay out my thesis here.

The west has made three major errors in its climate policy. Number one, the fact that the committee on party process has never seriously addressed the creation of substitute goods, low-cost, affordable substitutes to high-carbon consumer practices and products, at the same pace that we have increased our reliance on energy from autocratic nations while reducing our own capacity to produce carbon energy is a huge problem. In simple terms, what that means is that the people at the fancy cocktail parties forgot that, if we do not have something to replace something with, we are going to have a massive increase in price and the demand is going to be filled by something or someone. That is critical error number one, that we do not have substitute goods for carbon in a way to address or match what is happening with inflation.

Critical error number two is that the western world has just spent an enormous amount of money on the pandemic. We are having a massive parliamentary debate on whether or not that spending was justified. I would think everyone in here agrees that the western world is so in debt that we no longer have resiliency to weather another shock, which means that, at a time when we need to be addressing things like energy security, there is, number one, an unwillingness to step away from the current climate dogma of the current policy on the table, which does not address substitute goods and, number two, we cannot even get countries to talk about how we are going to address the lack of supply that has been precipitated by Russia turning the taps off.

The third critical failing in global climate policy is that we fail to understand that the west's paternalistic approach to post-colonial countries has left a dialogue that is ripe for anti-western rhetoric to take root. What do those three things come into nexus on right now? This is where we are.

There are three major problems.

First of all, we are seeing massive economic disaster in the European Union specifically. I encourage colleagues here today to look at the inflation numbers, particularly out of the European Union. They are grim, and they are frightening.

Second, I ask my colleagues to look at the reliance of European countries on Russian gas. In Germany, I believe it is 50% of its utilization that comes from Russia, and there is no replacement for that in sight. Why? It is because our climate policy has been short-sighted and did not say, “Look, while we are trying to find ways to replace that carbon with new technology, we should be ensuring that there is a supply from pro-democratic, western countries.” Now, there is no short- or even medium-term solution for European countries from Canada or even the U.S. to meet that demand, which is a huge problem. That is a reality that is not set into our climate policy.

The other problem with this is that there is going to be civil unrest. When people cannot afford to eat or heat their homes, all the stuff we talk about here, and sometimes the theatre that engages in the House of Commons, results in civil unrest. If it does not result in civil unrest, it results in something equally dangerous, which is a ground of people, an electorate, in western countries, in democratic nations, who are open to listening to anti-democratic propaganda from countries that have an economic interest in ensuring that they have that supply.

The third thing that is very damaging about this failure in western climate policy is that now, when we are faced with the consequences, not having those substitute goods, not having that pro-democratic, western supply of carbon energy, we are now firing coal plants up again. There are coal-fired electricity plants that are being fired up in western countries with climate policies, because Canada did not produce LNG.

In all seriousness, this is what I want my colleagues to ask: What happens if Russia never turns the taps back on? If anybody thinks that is not going to happen, it is already finding new markets in China, India and Myanmar. What happens? We do not have substitute goods, and we are so in debt we do not have the ability now. How is the government going to pay for beefing up our grid infrastructure and all the things we need to do to make actual change in climate policy? We do not have that resilience. We do not even have that resilience to help people through this winter's energy crisis or this winter's food crisis.

I want people to think about the long-term fallout of what is going to happen here as we are putting tariffs and restrictions on petroleum fertilizer in Canada. I have talked to Ukrainian MPs who are worried about food production, and not in the short term. They say the Russians are seeding their fields with land mines.

This is serious, and the bill does not address any of this stuff. Frankly, our dialogue on climate change, on energy security, is in this theatre between one pole and the other. This government is in power right now, and it has a responsibility and a moral duty to answer the questions: We are in dire straits; what are we going to do? What happens if Russia does not turn the taps back on? We do not have an answer for that right now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Well, knowing that we have only about 50 seconds left in the speech, I would ask the member to maybe wrap things up in view of the bill before us.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not have asked for a greater proof point than what the leader of the Green Party of Canada just gave to my argument.

Environmental policy is so out of touch; it is so far from being moored in the reality of actually achieving results while ensuring that western democratic values are protected that this is the type of comment we get. The fact that we are debating the bill today—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry but Bill S-5 is not a sign of irrelevance for all climate policy. It happens to be the bill we are debating now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe we are descending into debate. For the sake of 30 seconds left in the speech, maybe we will let the member finish her speech and then we will take questions and comments. I am sure there will be a lot of great comments and a lot of great answers.

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, that is the point. We are here spending time in debate on something that does not even come close to addressing the greatest environmental challenge and the greatest threat to the global geopolitical order in recent history. This is not a joke. This is not about points of order and whatever. This is about a call to action for every person in this place to understand that our failure on this issue means autocracies benefit. We have to get this right.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that my hon. colleague's speech is not necessarily tied into Bill S-5, but all of it is extremely important. Bill S-5 is important, and all the comments my colleague has made are issues that we all have to be paying much more attention to than we have so far.

Certainly, at various committees, work is being done. I encourage the hon. member and I know how sincere she is with her concerns that at the committee level we will continue to work through some of these issues. However, I share concern on much of what she said about where we are going and whether we have enough time to get where we need to get with the concerns she has raised today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough. I get where my colleague is coming from, but she is a member of the governing party. As a member of the governing party, she has influence and stature within her caucus to say that the pressure the world is under right now because of our inability to have a stable source of carbon energy at this juncture in history could actually contribute to not just massive civil unrest due to inflationary pressures but also a reset of the geopolitical order. I encourage her to use her voice within her caucus and up the food chain to persuade the government to make a difference and change its policy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, with whom I recently had the pleasure of attending the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Kigali. She and I met with the same Ukrainian elected representatives and observed the same geopolitical issues and the rise of a kind of autocracy and anti-West movements.

I want to go back to Bill S‑5 because it is crucial. We know that international conflicts, food insecurity and climate change are connected, and we know they will exacerbate global hunger issues.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about farmers. Farmers really want to be part of the solution to develop better food resilience and be supported through this transition. This is crucial, and it is related to what we are talking about in Bill S‑5 because it has to do with the traceability of what we eat and the safety of the products we ingest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, because she is laying out the problem here. Right now, the world does not have the tools it needs to address the issues of food insecurity due to a lack of carbon energy production, particularly in light of the situation in Europe right now as well as those long-term substitute goods.

What the member is addressing is the issue of the price inelasticity of carbon. This is something I have been talking about in here for 10 years. We can tax and we can make the price as high as possible, but if it is a critical good that humanity relies upon to exist, if we do not have it we will get civil unrest, starvation, riots and more.

We are down that path. We need to ensure that energy security and substitute goods are an emergent, number one priority for any conversation on climate policy. I really encourage colleagues within their own caucuses, as we are approaching Canada's trip to the Conference of the Parties, to be talking about how Canada should be putting energy security at the front of its climate policy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Federation of Labour came to Ottawa, along with its affiliates IBEW, the boilermakers, steelworkers, Unifor and the operating engineers to say that Alberta workers want a new deal, one that is based on investing in a clean energy alternative. I understand the Deputy Prime Minister has met with the Alberta workers.

I have not seen any support for the position of the Alberta Federation of Labour from the Conservatives in Alberta. Does my hon. colleague support the work of the Alberta Federation of Labour and the energy workers it represents on getting the government to invest in a clean energy future?

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

Mr. Speaker, where is the money going to come from? We are broke.

I appreciate my colleague's perspective. I agree we need to have good jobs for all Canadians and an innovative look at that, but we are not resilient, and it is because of the spending. We need to make sure we have a resilient economic plan. Money does not grow on trees. We cannot print money forever. Those are realities I would ask my colleagues, particularly the Liberals and the NDP, who vote together on these matters, to address.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech tonight with an example from the real world. Let us say that Bob, for lack of a better name, was hired by a company to specifically develop targets to meet the goals of that business, and they wanted Bob to set not only the goals and the targets for that business but also the plan to achieve them. If I said that Bob had been working there for seven years, had presented numbers and targets that he was going to do for the company multiple times and failed every single time, most Canadians would rightfully think that Bob does not deserve a seventh chance. Bob deserves to be fired. The company may want to take a different approach to how they meet the goals and targets they set for themselves.

We have watched the exact same thing happen here in Ottawa for the past seven years. For seven years, we have had our own Bob on the Liberal benches. We have had numerous ministers stand time and time again, who always have nice backdrops and use every buzzword, platitude and virtue signal possible, to talk about what they are going to do for the environment on issue A or B, how they are going to set a new target and how they will meet it. Every single time, they have not met any of the targets they set when it came to emissions reductions. One would think maybe they came close a couple of times. They did not come close even once.

During the pandemic there was a drop in emissions when we were locked down, businesses were shut down and people were at home. As we have opened up in the past couple of years, we have returned to the same failed results that the Liberal and NDP coalition have come together on: higher emissions and the absolute opposite of what their plans and targets were.

Tonight, we are on the floor of the House of Commons talking about environmental issues and, specifically, the confidence the House has in the Liberals and NDP over the course of the next couple of years, however long that arrangement may last, and the faith and confidence that Canadians do not have in them to follow through on anything they have to say when it comes to the environment.

In this country after seven years of a Liberal government, we have an emissions crisis, according to its own numbers that we need to reduce, which are going up every single year. It has a record of setting targets, never following through and breaking every single promise it has ever made on it. It also promised to cap it at $50 a tonne. That will triple in the coming years.

Not only do we have an environmental crisis, according to the government's own targets, but we have an economic one created here too. We spend a lot of time on the floor of House of Commons talking about inflation, talking about the cost of living and, more than ever before, talking about how more Canadians are struggling to make ends meet while the environmental promises that were made, with all the right words, at the end of the day achieve very few results. It is actually the opposite. Again, they are not even coming close to what has been said and promised to Canadians.

A key piece of that plank of the Liberals' environmental platform, we argue, is not actually an environmental plan. It is a tax plan when it comes to the carbon tax. The carbon tax is driving up the price of everything, and it is now creating an economic crisis in our country when it comes to gas, transportation, home heating, groceries, rent, construction or whatever else.

We have the opportunity. When the Liberals propose and bring forward a bill on anything to do with the environment, after several years, numerous broken promises and the number of times the Liberals promised something they did not actually have the ability to deliver and follow through on, when they seek forgiveness afterward and ask for that fourth, fifth or sixth chance to say that this time they mean it and this time they have a plan to actually do what they say they are going to do, Canadians, rightfully, do not buy it anymore.

When we look at a specific piece of legislation, Bill S-5, and what the government would be tasked with doing in the coming years when it comes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canadians rightfully have watched public accounts, read the environment commissioner's reports and read the Auditor General's reports, which say the government is saying one thing and has a complete lack of ability to do the other.

We have talked about a different approach to environmental issues. We believe, and our new leader has said this several times, which is resonating with more and more parts of this country, that technology and the evolution and development of it here at home are much better than the carbon tax plan that is being supported by the Liberals, the NDP and members of the Green Party.

The reality is that everything that the government touches these days makes the situation worse and it makes it more expensive. What we need to do is not increase taxes during these challenging times.

The other side has had the opportunity, through their environmental priorities, to raise taxes in the name of a carbon tax, saying that their solution would solve this problem. They said to just trust them and they will deliver on it. The cost of living and inflation has been driven up. Emissions are going up. Still, despite setting new targets and new plans and using all of the platitudes and all the buzzwords over and over again, they are not achieving. They are failing.

We are proposing a different path. It is time not to triple the carbon tax in the coming years. It is time to actually get rid of it—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Bill S-5 is not about the carbon tax. This is not an opportunity to talk about future plans for campaigns or anything like that. Bill S-5 is about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I think that if the members opposite are going to speak to it, they should speak directly to the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I will remind everyone in the chamber today that we are speaking to a specific bill, so I would maybe ask people to wrap things up. There are about two minutes left in the hon. member's speech.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the hon. member for his intervention. I would be very uncomfortable that we are highlighting the failures of the carbon tax and the government's broken promises. I appreciate the opportunity to reiterate what I just said in my speech. The Liberals say things when it comes to the environment. They propose legislation, targets, plans, spending and taxes in the name of the environment, but every single time, when the reality comes, they get very uncomfortable about being called out on their record.

They say every word salad and buzzword out there when it comes to the environment, yet they do nothing and actually have the opposite result. They drive up the cost of living. They drive up inflation. They are perpetuating two crises, an environmental protection crisis and an economic one now too.

On Bill S-5, I will use it as a perfect example It says in this legislation that the government will set out specific criteria for the government to look at managing or regulating a substance. It talks about ensuring that plans for new substances that may be toxic will be developed in 24 months. If we go back and look at the words that are proposed and the actual action plan, and do not take my word for it but take the Parliamentary Budget Officer's, the Auditor General of Canada's or the environment commissioner's word for it, the government says one thing and that it means well, using every good word possible, but it fails time and time again.

The Liberals and the other parties do not like talking about the failure of the carbon tax and their environmental policy. After seven years of failure, I agree with them. It would be pretty painful to talk about the economic realities they have created and the environmental record they have created in this country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I look around the chamber. One of the things that is very important while we are having debates is to ensure we always have quorum, and I do not believe we have quorum in the chamber right now.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always love when they call quorum, but I do not know if the member counted people who are online.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will look to the Table to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

We have 21, so I am satisfied that we do have quorum.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague opposite, during his speech on Bill S-5, raised some pretty valid concerns and some important issues that, while I was knocking on doors this weekend, I heard from my neighbours as well. However, in talking about Bill S-5, or actually not talking about Bill S-5, we are removing time from the Order Paper and talking about these issues.

My friend and colleague wanted to talk about carbon pricing, so I have a quote for him. It reads, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms” and “we'll tie [our] carbon price...to the European Union”.

Just for the record, the European price on pollution right now, the carbon price, is about 80 euros, which is much higher than the $50 in Canada. That quote was from the “the more you burn, the more you earn” platform the Conservative Party ran on in the most recent federal election.

Also, I heard earlier tonight that if one does not have alternatives or something to replace it with, then one does not really have much of an argument. The members opposite had an opportunity over the last little while, as we debated Bill S-5 at nauseam, longer than one usually talks about a bill implementation act, to talk about some real world examples to help the environment, to provide a healthy environment or at least to provide people with those rights. However, I have not heard any of those ideas, so I will give my friend the opportunity.

Does he want to institute a new type of carbon price? Is there something else he would like to recommend or suggest to protect our environment, or are we just hot airing it tonight in the House of Commons?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for raising the carbon tax during this debate and giving me the opportunity to respond. I really appreciate it, because when he talks about 80 euros over in Europe and only $50 here, it gives me the perfect opportunity to remind the Liberal benches and the NDP that they are going to triple the carbon tax in the coming years to $170.

It gives me the opportunity to raise the Parliamentary Budget Officer report that says, “most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing” and household costs “exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.”

It gives me the opportunity to remind the Liberal government that, on every single environmental target and promise it has made when it comes to emissions reduction, it has failed. All it is doing is raising the cost of living on people at a time when they need it the least.