Bruce Hyer

[The Environment, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to give the Conservatives an idea that might get them re-elected. Does that get their attention?

Polling shows clearly that the majority of Canadians are ready to pay more to reduce CO₂ emissions. They are ready to pay more to put a price on carbon.

One would think that the parties would pay attention to what Canadians indicate they want, but let us look at the political realities around here.

The Conservatives have no plan to reduce CO₂. They have no plan to put a price on carbon. On the contrary, they subsidize big oil and gas companies, and not even Canadian companies.

Here is an enlightening fact. Since 2009, thanks to Conservative inaction, Canada's carbon emissions have been steadily going up, not down, and that rise is expected to continue.

There are real costs to this inaction. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has estimated that without real action, climate change will cost Canada $5 billion a year just six years from now. By 2050, it predicts we will be paying between $21 billion and $43 billion each year.

The Liberals, in true Liberal fashion, say that they are ready to put a price on carbon, they just will not say what kind, or when or how.

The New Democrats, to be different than the Liberals, decided a decade ago, and I was there, that they were in favour of cap and trade. They do not really know how it works, because they do not really know much about business. However, they are for cap and trade, even though it would be bureaucratic, expensive and it would not work.

Therefore, where does that leave the Green Party?

The Green Party of Canada understands that we need to shift steadily to reduce CO₂ and foster renewable sustainable energy sources. It has to be done in an orderly manner so as not to kill the Canada goose that lays the economic eggs. However, it has to be done steadily and progressively so we can build Canadian green technologies, create Canadian jobs, remain competitive internationally and save a very nice planet.

The fix is simple: put a price on carbon. Pay a little now to avoid paying a lot more in a few short years.

We have seen it implemented very successfully in Scandinavian and European countries, and even in British Columbia. That is why the Green Party of Canada is totally in favour of a price on CO₂, under a method called “carbon fee and dividend”. People just have to Google it.

A big misconception is that people will be directly taxed from a carbon fee, which is not true. The Conservatives actively try to promote this untruth, so either they are wilfully misleading the public or they do not understand how carbon fee and dividend works.

No Canadian will be taxed under carbon fee and dividend. This fee would be applied only at the source. Producers would pass the cost on, but to alleviate the cost to consumers, the revenue collected from this fee would be given directly back to each and every Canadian on an equal per capita basis.

The benefits of carbon fee and dividend are clear, and they extend to the environment, the economy and to every Canadian.

The NDP should support it because it will reduce poverty at the same time it reduces CO₂.

The Liberals should support it because sooner or later they have to come off the fence and pick some kind of price on carbon and this is the best alternative.

The Conservatives especially should support it because it is market driven, predictable, fair, creates no new bureaucracy or increased government costs and not one penny goes to government. It might just save their hold on government in the next election.

Therefore, will the government consider carbon fee and dividend?

[Natural Resources, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are digging our economy and ecology deeper into the tar sands. They are ignoring Canadians from coast to coast who are calling for leadership on climate change and energy innovation.

The government has no plan to meet Canadian energy needs. After eight years of stumbling along, their failure to plan has caught up with all of us. Luckily, we have an opportunity, after the next election unfortunately, to overcome Conservative mismanagement here. We need a national energy strategy, one that is approved in Parliament. We need to price CO₂ with carbon fee and dividends, which I will introduce soon. We need to meet Canadian energy needs, create jobs, and protect the environment.

We can achieve Canadian oil self-sufficiency. We can balance economic growth with smart choices about sustainable energy. We can create jobs here at home and become a global energy leader, not follower. Let us do it.

[Natural Resources, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago, the Conservative cabinet approved Enbridge's northern gateway pipeline. Canadians from coast to coast including most first nations had spoken out against the dangers of the project. Economists and many other experts said it was bad for the economy and the environment. However, the Conservatives approved the pipeline anyway. They tried to do so very quietly. The Minister of Natural Resources hid from the media. He refused to take interviews.

Once upon a time the Conservatives could not stop talking about all the supposed “benefits” Canadians would receive from northern gateway. Now they cannot wait to change the subject.

Here is where we are now after eight years of haphazard energy policy from the Conservatives. Without the means to get western oil to eastern Canada, Canadians from Halifax to Thunder Bay have been forced to import the world's most expensive foreign oil from countries like Venezuela, Africa and the Middle East. All the while, the government has been shipping our unrefined resources to the U.S.A. at much lower prices. We are selling off our oil at a 30% discount, while paying much more for expensive imports.

My father was an investment banker. Dad taught me that the first rule of business is to buy low and sell high. However, the Conservatives do not seem to understand even basic business. They buy high, sell low and their approach is costing Canada $18 billion every single year in balance of trade deficits. We now export twice as much oil as we import and we are failing to meet Canadian energy supply or security needs.

We do not want more pipelines with lax safeguards to ship unrefined oil overseas at a discount. The first step is to develop and approve in Parliament a national energy strategy. We are the only G20 country without one. We need a clear plan to meet Canada's energy needs, address climate change and shift to sustainable energy.

We should look after Canadians' needs first. An east-west pipeline could allow us to do just that. It would reduce our dependency on foreign oil and would create long-term jobs here at home instead of exporting them to the United States and communist China, and FIPA makes that even worse. A cross-country pipeline would reduce our huge trade deficit, giving Canada self-sufficient energy security.

I am not talking about TransCanada's proposed energy east pipeline. I am opposed to energy east as it is currently proposed. Any pipeline from west to east must be brand new and double walled. It must have leak sensors between the walls and shut-off controls that are proven to work. Any pipeline must be virtually spill-proof. It also cannot carry diluted bitumen or dilbit, as proposed by energy east. Tar sands bitumen must be upgraded to synthetic crude before it enters Ontario.

The Green Party knows we will not stop using oil overnight. Any transition to sustainable sources will take time. However, climate change is costing Canadians in real environmental and economic terms. Future generations will face huge burdens if they are forced to pay for the damage climate disruption will do. My proposed carbon fee and dividend bill would dramatically reduce CO₂ emissions and end poverty at the same time.

We must go back to the drawing board and come back with a real plan for energy security that also protects the environment of Canada, west and east.

[Justice, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to risk the lives of women and implement this ineffective bill. The new legislation would do nothing to protect sex workers or to accept the realities of the sex trade.

The Supreme Court ruled that Canadian prostitution laws infringed on Canadians' charter rights. The Conservatives have done nothing to remedy this. They have only further marginalized vulnerable people in a vulnerable trade, introduced legislation that is clearly unconstitutional, and empowered organized crime.

We need progressive and effective legislation that will protect sex workers from the dangers they face. The government has a chance to implement legislation that would legalize, regulate, and tax the sex trade, as in New Zealand, where discrimination and violence against women and sex workers is declining.

Will the Conservatives please show that they care about violence against women and the constitutionality of our legislation, their legislation, and adopt more progressive legislation based on evidence, not repressive and hypocritical ideology?

[Justice, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to voice my opposition to the Conservatives' Bill C-36, the so-called “protection of communities and exploited persons act”. Bill C-36 would do nothing to improve the working conditions for those involved in the sex trade.

Under Bill C-36, a prostitute who communicates to sell sexual services could be thrown in jail for up to six months. This is the same criminalization of sex workers under a new name.

When sex workers and their clients are scared of prosecution, they will take steps to avoid police detection. This will lead to even more unsafe and riskier working conditions.

Bill C-36 flies in the face of all the concerns raised by our Supreme Court last December.

The Conservatives have tried to sell this bad bill by claiming that targeting the buyers of sex will decrease the demand for prostitution. This is ridiculous. The demand will always exist and has existed for the world's oldest profession.

A report from Norway, where prostitution laws were similar to those proposed by this government, concluded that sex workers there were still experiencing high levels of violence and discrimination against women had actually increased.

Bill C-36 is part of a pattern of the Conservatives' blatant disregard for the rights of Canadians. The unanimous ruling by our highest court was clear: the old laws were unconstitutional. They infringed on the charter right to security, which all Canadians are entitled to, including sex workers.

The Conservatives have totally ignored the Bedford ruling. The bill discriminates against sex workers. It openly defies the Supreme Court and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course, this is hardly the first time the Conservative government has disregarded the Supreme Court. Its Bill C-2 banned safe injection sites, which the court unanimously ruled were necessary to reduce health risks in 2011. The Conservatives have ignored the court's affirmation of Canadians' privacy rights and introduced Bill C-13, which would legalize Internet snooping.

This is shameful. The Conservatives' disdain for the constitutional rights of Canadians is reprehensible and dangerous.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to introduce evidence-based policy. They could have taken a hint from New Zealand, where prostitution is legal, regulated and taxed.

Research there shows that sex workers are safer and are empowered to refuse dangerous clients. Sex workers in New Zealand are more likely to use condoms and HIV rates there are lower there than in other countries. Employment conditions for sex workers in New Zealand have improved drastically and violence against sex workers there has declined significantly.

The facts speak for themselves. While the Conservatives are entitled to their own opinions about sexual matters, they are not entitled to their own facts.

The government should know that poverty is the major driver for many women in the sex trade. If the Conservatives really want to help sex workers, perhaps they would implement a guaranteed livable income so all Canadians could prosper in a safe career of their own choosing.

Our response should have followed the successful New Zealand model, a safe and regulated work environment. A practical and progressive government would, and will soon in about a year from now, face reality and make prostitution legal, regulated, taxed, safer for everyone and get organized crime out of the sex business.

[Committees of the House, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay and the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing have been passionate about this, have worked long and hard to fight for the rights of indigenous peoples, and I compliment them for that.

Obviously, we need an inquiry. What is happening is grossly unacceptable and cannot go on any longer. We need to study it, think about it, debate it, raise the profile and solve it. On top of that, since the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has studied this long and hard, what else could we and should we do to make this situation better?

[Petitions, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to receive many hundreds of petitions about the Canada–China FIPA, and the concern about the fact that it will be in effect irreversibly for decades, is likely to cause billions of dollars in compensation to Chinese firms and will undermine the sovereignty of Canada.

The petitioners ask that the House do whatever is possible to ensure that our sovereignty over Canadian law remains in effect.

[Democratic Reform, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the reform act could help to fix Parliament and restore Canadian democracy, but the leaders of the three major parties threaten to kill the bill if it is not watered down. The leaders and the parties love having their MPs under their thumb, and sometimes under their heel.

Will the minister support the current version of the reform act and get MPs working for their constituents once again?

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of my constituents have indicated to me, by email and in person, that they believe that biological and pragmatic, and even political, reality as well as human nature indicate that we should legalize it, tax it, and regulate it. The bill, obviously, would make things worse, in terms of protecting women from violence.

My question for this hon. member, after his fine speech, is a political question. Why does he think the Conservatives are bringing forward a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, totally irrational, and makes no pragmatic sense, at all?

[International Trade, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if our Prime Minister introduced a bill that would stick Canadian taxpayers with billions of dollars in payouts to China for three decades, give Chinese companies huge advantages over Canadian ones, and let secret tribunals weaken Canadian sovereignty, he knows that even his own MPs would vote against it. So why did the Prime Minister ratify this incredibly secretive, one-sided, and foolish treaty with communist China?