House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 55% of the vote.
Foreign Affairs October 17th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, Canada is about to vote at the UN for members of the sardonically named Human Rights Council. Four notorious human rights abusers are among the candidates, again: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba.
The vote is secret, but we know favours are traded in the UN process, and we recognize the Liberals' indecent appetite for Security Council votes. Will the Liberals tell Canadians and the world how Canada will vote on these four human rights abusers?
Foreign Affairs October 6th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Liberals practise a very quiet diplomacy when it comes to human rights abuse in China or with China's military expansionism in the South China Sea, but it is time for the government to stand up against China's thuggish behaviour in Canada.
It is bad enough that the Liberals did not protest when China blocked Taiwan's usual observer role at the civil aviation meeting in Montreal, but how could the government remain silent when China blocked a Canadian citizen, a journalist, from covering that meeting, in Canada?
Paris Agreement October 4th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we need to recognize that, without a North American climate change plan, we are at serious risk and we will see this as the Liberals impose their one-size-fits-all national carbon tax across the country. We are at serious risk of wrong-footing some of our major industries by applying taxes, which they will pass on to the consumer. In some cases, they will lose competitive advantage in their larger markets south of the border.
There are any number of alternatives to cap and trade in Ontario. British Columbia has the least damaging, the so-called revenue-neutral plan. However, there has been little discussion or examination of the carbon fee and dividend plan, which is even better than British Columbia's co-called tax-neutral plan, because it has been estimated that for most Canadians there would be a greater return of dividends than of the carbon fees that would be paid.
Paris Agreement October 4th, 2016
No, Mr. Speaker, that will not reverse our opposition to the heavy-handed imposition of a national carbon tax.
Our government, in our time, worked with the major producers in the energy industry on regulations for that industry to set emission intensity limits and to apply compliance penalties for any over-emissions. These producers will accept a national carbon tax because they will pass it on to consumers, and consumers will pay the price for this general tax in a variety of ways. Ontarians are going to pay into the cap and trade system, and the money raised will be used by the Ontario government. It will go into general revenues and will do nothing to effectively lower CO2 emissions in Ontario.
Paris Agreement October 4th, 2016
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
I am pleased to speak to the Liberal motion, to support the first element, which is ratification of the Paris agreement, and to strongly oppose the second part, which would unilaterally impose a federal carbon tax on all Canadians and against the express wishes of a number of provinces and territories.
I am sure members are not surprised that we are supporting ratification of the Paris agreement. It is effectively the continuation of our Conservative government's 2030 emission reduction plan.
It was, after all, our Conservative government that took Canada out of the aspirational but failed Kyoto agreement, which none of the world's major emitting countries joined, and of those who did, involved barely one-third of global GHGs, and which the Liberals signed without any due diligence or intent to fulfill. Of course history will remind us that the Liberals then did absolutely nothing to implement Kyoto. In fact, emissions under the Liberal government rose by 35%.
Our Conservative government joined the Copenhagen agreement and worked diligently to regulate reductions in GHG emissions across the major emitting sectors. At the same time, we campaigned to create an even better post-Kyoto accord, which would include all of the world's major emitters. If China, the United States, India, Brazil, and the other big emitters follow through on their commitments under the Paris agreement, we will now have the engagement that we in the official opposition and previously in the Conservative government sought.
We committed to Copenhagen, and now Paris, even though Canada generated less than 2% of global CO2 every year, because we believed, and we still believe, that Canada must play its part with all of the major polluters. As a result, our Conservative government was the first in Canadian history to achieve real, tangible, significant reductions of greenhouse gases, even as we enjoyed economic growth.
Members will recall we started with the transportation sector, the largest emission sector in Canada, and we created, in partnership with the United States, tailpipe regulations that would reduce car and light truck emissions by 50% by 2025 and would consume 50% less fuel. We set regulations for heavy-duty trucks and buses that would see emissions from these vehicles by 2018 reduced by up to 23%, which would mean up to $18,000 a year in savings for a semi truck operator in a 2018 heavy-duty model vehicle. We set marine emission guidelines and began work with the aviation and rail industries. We then moved on to the next largest emission sector.
When the Prime Minister opened this debate, he mentioned the benefits to reduced emissions from coal-fired electricity generating plants. However, I was not surprised that he did not mention that it was our Conservative government that imposed a ban on the construction of new traditional coal-fired units, the first government in the world to implement such a ban.
I was not surprised the Prime Minister did not mention our Conservative government's pilot project investment in a world-leading carbon capture and sequestration project in Estevan, Saskatchewan, which led to that provincial government's trail blazing billion dollar-plus investment in a commercial CCS unit at SaskPower's Boundary Dam. This project will enable Saskatchewan to benefit from an estimated 300-year supply of coal, not to leave it in the ground but to burn it cleanly, by capturing one million tonnes of CO2 per year and storing it safely in deep underground reservoirs.
The world is watching the Boundary Dam project, but the Liberals are looking the other way. The Liberals are also looking the other way on our other achievements, hoping Canadians do not remember that our Conservative government also protected a record amount of parkland and made historic investments in wetland and boreal forest restoration and protection, adding considerably to Canada's capacity to sequester GHG emissions in the old fashioned way: nature's carbon storage.
After the transportation and coal-fired sectors regulations, we began work on setting emissions limiting regulations for the oil and gas industry and its sub-sectors. We found the industry willing to participate in the search for emissions intensity limits and compliance fees for over-emitters.
Our Conservative government pioneered the concept that compliance fees raised would remain in the province in which they were collected and would follow the tech fund research investment model created in Alberta.
Unfortunately, although other provinces with significant upstream, midstream, and downstream oil and gas operations were seriously engaged in those talks, time and circumstance did not result in completion of that regulations exercise. The circumstance was that in the wake of the recession there was real concern that Canadian producers, transporters and refiners would have been significantly wrong footed in the highly competitive North American market.
In the absence of matching regulatory action by the United States, the quest for oil and gas regulations was shelved temporarily.
In hindsight, if regulations had been imposed on the oil and gas sector three years ago, they almost certainly would have had to been suspended to protect the Canadian sector and our national economy when resource markets collapsed.
In my home province of Ontario, economic storm clouds are building over the provincial Liberal government's misguided embrace of a failed European model of cap and trade, which comes into effect January 1. Carbon markets have not worked anywhere in this world. The decade-old European market, which saw billions of dollars originally invested, saw most of those same billions evaporate when the market crashed as a result of speculation, fraud, and organized crime manipulation.
We saw another carbon market crash this year in California when that state government's latest option of carbon credits raised barely 2%, or $10 million of an intended $500 million target.
Yet now we see in Ontario a lemming-like determination to follow the failed European and California cap-and-trade models. All Ontarians will have to pay for the carbon market through higher consumer prices, except essential major polluters that will get a major windfall of free carbon credits from the Ontario government. This effectively means a big cash transfer from ordinary taxpayers to these major polluters.
Ontario will sooner or later inevitably see this complex voodoo economics-driven carbon market collapse on itself.
A wise man once described cap and trade as the dumbest way to implement carbon pricing. That was before the Liberals' national carbon tax, unrealistically conceived by the same brain trust responsible for the Ontario cap-and-trade cash grabbing boondoggle, estimated to be $1.9 billion to be scooped annually from the pockets of taxpayers and go into Ontario general revenues.
An escalating national carbon tax, unilaterally threatened without serious analysis or consultation with the provinces and territories that have very different but legitimate ways of countering climate change, is a flagrant violation of the spirit of our federation.
Our Conservative Party, as the official opposition, believes that economic growth and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. We believe in and support open and co-operative federalism, but we oppose the Liberals' high-handed encroachment on areas of shared jurisdiction.
We in the official opposition believe that Canada can and must find the right balance between protection of our environment for future generations and growing our economy to ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians.
Foreign Affairs October 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, China executes more people every year than the rest of the world combined. Due process does not exist. White collar criminals are routinely put to death, and the Chinese premier says China will not consider ending the death penalty. Therefore, why are the Liberals talking, discussing, negotiating with China on an extradition treaty?
Foreign Affairs October 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, as the Liberals press ahead with their misguided negotiation of an extradition treaty with China, and just as a correction for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines negotiation as “discussion”.
We have heard concerning remarks from the Prime Minister's spokesman that Canada is not going to criticize the Chinese justice system. Really? Is that why the foreign minister has been so reluctant to speak out on human rights abuses in China?
Rosh Hashanah October 3rd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to offer New Year's greetings to Jewish friends in Thornhill, across Canada, and around the world.
Thornhill boasts the largest Jewish population of any riding in the country, and over the years I have had the privilege and honour of working closely with the community in the special celebrations and observances of the Jewish faith.
Every new year cycle begins with a focus on renewal, forgiveness, and reconciliation. It is a time to reflect on the past year, to learn from mistakes, and to commit to work toward a better new year.
I look forward to the celebratory sounding of the shofar and the symbolic foods, the apples dipped in honey in hopes of a sweet new year.
I wish all good health, happiness, peace, and prosperity.
L'Shanah Tovah! Happy Rosh Hashanah.
Business of Supply September 29th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, as the member sits beside the chair of our foreign affairs committee, I quite agree with the remarks that the committee is applying itself very diligently and productively to the issues we have been assigned to investigate.
As I mentioned in my remarks about the Arms Trade Treaty, we have serious reservations about the possible encroachment, with the breadth of the treaty as it is written today, with regard to those Canadians who are legitimate hunters and trappers, quite law-abiding users of weapons that can be used improperly. However, on record in Canada, this is a major recreational sporting sector of our economy. Billions of dollars every year are invested and generated by this economy.
As I said in my remarks, little or no consultation, to my knowledge, has been undertaken by the government to speak to lawful gun owners in Canada about their concerns about what participation in and commitment to the ATT would mean to them.
Business of Supply September 29th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I must say, it has been a pleasure in recent months to have worked with the member on the foreign affairs committee on a number of important issues.
The government has not been persuaded yet to strike a committee. However, there are a great many very important issues, to be fair, that the committee has been asked to address, and it will.
To answer my colleague's question directly, there is concern. There is concern among the Canadian public about a broad range of situations in the world today where arms have found their way into the hands of those who would abuse not only human rights but their own domestic populations.
I think conditions may seem to have changed in the years between the signing of some of our current contracts and the behaviour of the purchasing countries, bodies, and organizations in the years since. Therefore, I think that, yes, it is a valid topic that Parliament should investigate, but again, I would suggest that the resources of the House are too valuable and too thinly stretched to be focused on yet another standing committee. It would be best done by a subcommittee of either the foreign affairs committee or a joint subcommittee of foreign affairs and perhaps defence.