House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 436
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
House of Commons Debates
VOLUME 148
NUMBER 436
1st SESSION
42nd PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Information Commissioner
I have the honour, pursuant to section 38 of the Access to Information Act, to lay upon the table the report of the Information Commissioner for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
[Translation]
Parliamentary Budget Officer
[English]
Commissioner of Lobbying
I have the honour, pursuant to section 11 of the Lobbying Act, to lay upon the table the report of the Commissioner of Lobbying for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019.
[Translation]
I also have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information and Privacy Acts of the Commissioner of Lobbying for the year 2018-19.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), these reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Government Response to Petitions
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, three reports of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The first concerns the bilateral visit to New Zealand and Samoa, held in Auckland and Wellington, New Zealand and Apia, Samoa, from March 1 to 10, 2019.
The second concerns the meeting of the International Executive Committee Working Group on Programmes, held in London, United Kingdom, from January 24 to 25, 2019.
The third concerns the International Executive Committee Meeting, held in London, United Kingdom, from November 5 to 9, 2018.
Committees of the House
Government Operations and Estimates
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 19th report of Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, entitled “Veterans: A Valuable Resource for the Federal Public Service”.
Furthermore, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Lastly, since this will be the final time I have an opportunity to speak on committee business before this Parliament dissolves, I want to thank, once again, all of those important people who assisted our committee over the last four years. In particular I want to point out one of analysts, as they say in Ottawa, who is with us today, Raphaëlle, who has been with this committee for four years and who has done an exemplary job. Frankly, without her assistance and her guidance, at times our committee would not have been able to perform the duties that it did.
Once again, I thank not only Raphaëlle but all those officials, translators, interpreters, clerks and others who made our committee as efficient as it was.
Environment and Sustainable Development
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “The Last Straw: Turning the Tide on Plastic Pollution in Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I would like to thank all of our support staff for the excellent work they did during this term.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 98th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “A Parallel Debating Chamber for Canada’s House of Commons”.
This may be a very historic report, because it may lead to the discussion of having a second House of Commons, a second parallel chamber similar to the ones in Britain and Australia.
As mentioned by you, Mr. Speaker, and a previous Conservative member, we would like to thank all the clerks and researchers in our committee, and in particular the clerk and researcher who have been with us since the beginning, and I think members would find are the best clerk and the best researcher in the House, maybe on division, Andrew Lauzon, the clerk, and Andre Barnes, our parliamentary researcher, for their great work.
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “International Grand Committee on Big Data, Privacy and Democracy”. Indeed, it was an honour to host 10 countries representing over 400 million people in Ottawa. The first meeting was held in London, a co-effort with my co-chair Damian Collins from London. I want to thank everyone who pulled it together and made it such a great event and also all the witnesses who travelled such long distances to make it the International Grand Committee that it was.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Privacy of Digital Government Services”.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your services over the last four years and have a great summer.
Public Safety and National Security
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
I also want to endorse the general comments on the way in which we are so well served by those officials who are clerks and analysts. In this instance, I also want to compliment and appreciate the co-operation of my vice-chairs, the members for Beloeil—Chambly and Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and all of the members of the committee, along with the House leadership who have moved the bill in a very expeditious fashion because it is of great importance to the Canada Border Services Agency.
I also want to generally compliment the working of the committee. We have gone through something in the order of 13 major pieces of legislation, plus numerous reports, plus numerous private members' bills and we have had a collegial atmosphere that has served us all well. I am thankful to present the bill and this report.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.
I also want to thank the support staff of the committee.
[Translation]
I especially want to thank our clerk, Marc-Olivier Girard, and our analysts, Chloé Forget and Lyne Casavant, who did terrific work for our committee.
[English]
In conclusion, I also want to salute three members of the committee who will not be running again: the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Victoria and the member for West Nova, who all served on the committee for a long period of time over the last three years. They are all great parliamentarians and I think the House will miss each and every one of them.
[Translation]
Department of the Environment Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia for seconding this important bill.
The environment and climate change are the biggest issues of the day. We have a challenge to confront, but sadly, the process has become either a war of words with plenty of slogans but little action, or a deeply partisan issue, depending on how we look at it.
This bill will depoliticize the issue and force the government to meet its greenhouse gas reduction objectives by legislating a plan setting out GHG reduction targets. The government would be required to table an independent review in the House of Commons each year to be debated by parliamentarians.
This bill is inspired by the late, great Jack Layton, and I hope a majority of members will vote for it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[English]
Business of Supply
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Special or Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Tuesday, June 18, 2019, the question shall be put on the opposition motion at 5:30 pm after which all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply shall be put forthwith and successively, without debate or amendment.
Statements by Members
Mr. Speaker, there have also been further discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Prime Minister be permitted to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 on Wednesday, June 19, 2019.
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Canadians from the ridings of Kanata—Carleton, Ottawa—Vanier, Nepean, Elgin—Middlesex—London and London—Fanshawe. They call on the House of Commons to respect the rights of law-abiding firearms owners and reject the Prime Minister's plan to waste taxpayers' money on a ban on guns that are already banned.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from hundreds of Canadians, who point out that over 30,000 Canadians die annually from medical errors; the third leading cause of death in this country. The only resort they have for compensation is tort law, which ties up our courts and is financially and emotionally devastating.
All provincial governments transfer millions of taxpayer dollars to the Canadian Medical Protective Association to finance lawyers to fight these claims from patients. Because of this unfair advantage, only 2% of patient lawsuits are successful. Seven countries use no-fault health care compensation for medical errors.
These citizens call on the government to establish a mandatory error reporting system to facilitate learning from our mistakes, mandate courses on empathy and compassion for all health care workers, and establish a public inquiry to determine fair methods of compensation for medical errors, including arbitration, mediation and a no-fault health care compensation board, using the funds now transferred to the CMPA.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition that was started by Joan Howard, a member of my community who lost her son, Kempton Howard, to gun violence over 15 years ago.
She seeks this petition to create and support a national program for helping loved ones of murder victims, fund and promote programming that diverts young people away from gangs and crime, and that takes steps to ensure equal access to opportunities for young people across Canada and to strengthen and enhance the Canada Border Services Agency's ability to stop gun smuggling.
I stand with my community in fighting gun violence and making sure we have a safe community.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today that is timely, given the resolution last night that Canada is in a climate emergency. Youth petitioners and those who describe themselves as caring deeply about youth are calling on the Government of Canada to take meaningful actions to hit the obligations under the Paris Agreement, which are not the current 30% below 2005 by 2030 target, but in fact, a target designed to hit 1.5°C global average temperature increase and well below 2°C.
Petitioners call on the government to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, place a comprehensive and steadily rising national carbon price, and redirect investments into renewable energy, energy efficiency, low-carbon transportation and job training.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of Bill S-240, on organ harvesting.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have another 50 or so signatures to add to the 3,792 signatures on last week's petition calling for a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.
This petition is not just about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. It is about all aspects of rail safety. Decades of deregulation and privatization have jeopardized rail safety across the country.
Petitions are a way for citizens to make their voices heard. There are other ways. A documentary series about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy is in production. We will not give up.
I can see that many members want to present petitions, so I would ask members to present their petitions as briefly as possible.
The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present e-petition 2176 with 706 signatures. This is one of the most pervasive and long-lasting issues, both in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia and across Canada, and that is the lack of affordable child care. As we all know, lack of affordable child care keeps a lot of people, particularly women, out of the workforce. We also need to make sure we are paying our child care workers appropriately.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to establish an adequately funded framework to ensure that affordable, licensed child care is universally available throughout Canada, not just in Quebec and the pilot project in British Columbia, and that child care workers are appropriately compensated.
Mr. Speaker, this might be an appropriate moment to remind colleagues that it is an ancient right of citizens to present petitions to the Crown, notwithstanding what the member might think.
These petitioners are concerned about devices that have been planted in their brains without their knowledge and consent, affecting a variety of health issues. The petition is signed by hundreds of people from across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first one brings attention to the 20 years that the community of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation has had a boil water advisory. This is the very same community that supplies water to Winnipeg. The petitioners bring attention to boil water advisories for 100 other communities in the area.
The petitioners call upon the federal government, in collaboration with our local and provincial governments, in an act of reconciliation with indigenous people, to begin construction of the necessary water treatment plant at Shoal Lake 40 First Nation. They call for complete transparency in the planning process, including timelines, with the people of Shoal Lake 40. Now that the construction of Freedom Road has begun, they believe the time is right to implement the construction plans for the water treatment plant.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the House of Commons to recognize that violence against women remains a critical problem in Canada and that it disproportionately impacts indigenous women, as reflected in the crisis of missing and murdered aboriginal women and children; that striving for pay equity and equal participation for women in leadership roles must be a political priority for all members of Parliament; and that shifting cultural attitudes toward women and gender minorities in our society requires structural changes to education and socialization.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, children of parents in irregular situations are not entitled to the same benefits as all other children. That is unfair.
That includes children of parents who are homeless for a number of reasons, including the housing first policy. The Elizabeth Fry Society would like to right this wrong, and that is exactly what these petitioners want.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the hundreds of people who have signed this petition and are so frustrated with the government's policy to destroy Canada's energy sector through bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. The petitioners are calling on the government to review the equalization formula, given the punitive policies against the Alberta energy sector. This is a petition that I support. They are also calling on the government to scrap Bill C-69. It is crazy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House a petition from the Elizabeth Fry Society on children in irregular situations, such as children who have parents in prison or the children of single mothers.
On behalf of all Canadians, I am pleased to table this petition calling on the government to show greater flexibility toward children in vulnerable situations.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today from residents of Union Bay, Royston, Cumberland and Courtenay.
The first petition is titled “Save Wild Salmon”. It states that Canada's scientists have proven that diseased Atlantic farmed salmon in open-net pens in the Pacific Ocean are threatening the health of wild salmon. British Columbia, in particular, is well positioned to become a world leader in closed containment salmon aquaculture. The petitioners are calling on Canada to invest in a safe, sustainable industry that protects Pacific wild salmon, maintains employment and develops new technologies, jobs and export opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is titled “Let's Save Our Coast...Again”. The petitioners are calling on the government not to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline as it will increase the risk of bitumen oil spills, endangering Canada's environment and wildlife and putting thousands of marine and tourism jobs at risk, and as it disregards the right of indigenous peoples to say no to projects affecting their territories and resources. The petitioners state that the Trans Mountain pipeline will increase greenhouse gas emissions and make it impossible for Canada to meet its global climate targets.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition led by the Elizabeth Fry Society about children in irregular situations.
Mr. Speaker, thousands of people continue to sign a petition, originated by the Elizabeth Fry Society, that simply points out that some of Canada's most vulnerable children, because of various flaws in the policy and design of programs, are not able to access funding through several federal programs, including the Canada child benefit and children's special allowances. The petitioners are calling on the government to pay attention to this issue and fix the flaws so that Canada's most vulnerable and needy children get access to the support they so desperately need.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to table a petition from the Elizabeth Fry Society. This organization is very concerned about the situation of many children in Canada whose parents are in vulnerable situations, for example, parents who are in prison or homeless.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, these children are entitled to the same social benefits as every other child in our society.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present hundreds of additional names to the tens of thousands of Canadians who have petitioned the government over the last few months. This petition has been sponsored by activists from the Elizabeth Fry Society, and we thank them for their activism.
What the petitioners are asking for is very simple. Irregular situations mean that so many children in Canada do not have access to the programs and services that other children have access to. The Canadian government has a responsibility, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to make sure that discrimination is eliminated.
To this point, the government has not provided an adequate response to this petition and to the requests from activists across the country that all children be treated equally and have a right to the same benefits in Canada.
Questions on the Order Paper
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Business of Supply]
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—The Environment
Today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bill. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
That, given that the carbon tax will not reduce emissions at its current rate and it is already making life more expensive for Canadians, the House call on the government to repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a real environment plan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, a beautiful riding in British Columbia.
The motion before us says that the Liberal climate plan, which is effectively a tax plan, should be replaced by a real plan that will move Canada forward to address its emission challenges, addresses the global challenge of green gas emissions and climate change and does it in a way that is respectful to Canadian taxpayers.
The reality is this. Right now the Liberals have brought forward something they call a climate plan. However, it is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan. How do we know it is a tax plan? If members remember back to when they rolled out this plan, a briefing was held by departmental officials from Environment Canada. The minister's own officials said that the foundational element of the government's so-called climate change plan was the carbon tax. Therefore, they admitted right off the bat that this was a tax plan. Of course, today the Liberals are denying that. I think Canadians understand that this is all about taxes.
There is another reason why Canadians have good reason to believe that this is nothing more than a craven tax plan to raise revenues for the government. The minister often gets up in the House and talks about the 50 different elements within her tool kit that the government is deploying to address climate change in Canada. It has a program of 50 different elements and it will let the provinces pick whatever elements they choose to meet their own targets, except for one tool. What is that tool? It is the carbon tax. Out of 50 tools, the one tool that the Liberals are going to ram down the throats of the provinces and territories, ram it down the throats of consumers and taxpayers across the country is the carbon tax.
We have to ask ourselves why this is the only tool the Liberals have made mandatory across the country. The only conclusion Canadians can draw is that this tax is an essential element in the Liberal government raising more revenues, tax revenues, in the future to spend on its own political priorities rather than on the priorities of Canadians. This is what we are left with. It is one of the reasons why we brought forward this motion, clarifying for Canadians that the Liberal climate change plan is nothing but a craven tax plan. Today, Canadians are already paying the price for that plan.
This is a cash grab from Canadians and they understand that this is on top of all the other tax increases they pay because of the Liberal government.
Members may recall that under the previous Conservative government, taxes on Canadians reached an all-time low, the lowest tax burden on Canadians for over 50 years. Today, Canadians pay, on average, $800 more in taxes than they did back in 2015. On top of that, the carbon tax is being layered on families. Fifty per cent of those families are within $200 of being insolvent. Along with the challenges Canadians have to face, where they struggle day to day to meet their mortgage payments, take care of their kids' educations, buy groceries and put gas in their cars, the Liberals are laying a carbon tax on top of that.
What is worse, and what the Liberals did not come out and confess, is the fact that there is GST layered on top of that carbon tax. Therefore, Canadians are paying a tax on tax. I think a lot of Canadians watching right now are wondering whether I am serious about this.
The price at the pump has gone up dramatically already and the government is charging GST on top of that. The Liberals claim that all this money will go back to the taxpayer, which is not true of course. It is a tax on everything. It will cost Canadians more when they fill up their cars with gas, heat their homes and buy their groceries.
The plan right now calls for this tax to move from today's $20 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions to $50 per tonne by 2022. Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report that said that in order for the Liberals to reach their Paris agreement targets, they would have to jack up that tax to over $100 per tonne of emissions, more than doubling what it would be in 2022 and more than five times greater than what that carbon tax is today. This is a craven tax plan.
The Prime Minister has said that when it came to gas prices, higher gas prices was exactly what he wants. That is a statement from our own Prime Minister. He said that this extra tax burden on already overtaxed Canadians was exactly what he wanted.
Let me talk a bit about the Paris targets.
We must remember that this carbon tax is a foundational element of a plan to meet the Paris emissions targets that Canada signed onto. Is the government actually meeting its Paris targets? The answer is, no it is not. The government is far off.
We know from internal environment ministry reports that in 2016, the government had already fallen 44 megatons short of its Paris agreement targets. In 2017, it had fallen 66 megatons short of its targets. In 2018, it fell 79 megatons short of its targets. However, it gets worse.
Last year, when the government calculated that 79 megaton shortfall, it had already created something out of thin air called the land use and land use change in forestry component. The acronym is LULUCF. It essentially says that Canada sequesters carbon in its natural landscape, forests, grasslands, wetlands and farmlands. We are sequestering this carbon. The reality is that the government has not done the science to prove that, in fact, a net sequestration is taking place.
Available science, which is spotty at best, indicates that since about 2000-01, Canada has been a net contributor toward emissions from our natural landscape. The government has said that the science may not be there, that the Paris agreement does not allow Canada to account for this 24 extra megatons of emission reductions, but it will take it anyway. It says that Canada is only 79 megatons short. If we factor in this unsubstantiated claim that the government will reduce emissions through natural landscape, it is actually 103 megatons short.
Is the government meeting its Paris targets, which was the goal of the carbon tax, the foundational element of the Liberal climate change plan? The Liberals are not even meeting those targets and they are falling further behind every year.
Is the Liberal plan a failure? Absolutely, and members will have to agree with me. If we look at what is being measured and accountability for what we are delivering for the plan, the Liberals are way off the mark.
Very briefly, we are going to be rolling out our own environment plan tomorrow. It is going to give Canada a better chance, the best chance, to meet its Paris targets.
Therefore, I strongly support the motion before us, replacing the Liberal carbon tax plan with a real plan to address climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I have a great amount of respect for the member. We sat on the environment committee together, and I know he cares. However, what I find deeply troubling about the motion before us and the member's statements is that he is playing with the lives of future generations when he is making those claims in the House, particularly about putting a price on pollution and how ineffective it will be.
We have a Nobel Prize-winning economist who has said that this is the way to fight climate change. In 2008, Stephen Harper, the former prime minister of Canada, said that putting a price on pollution was a way to fight climate change. We had the Pope last weekend endorse putting a price on pollution.
Now I hear the Conservatives heckling about the fact that I am invoking the Pope. How ironic is that?
It is a basic economic principle that when we want to reduce something, we put a price on it. How can the member stand here today and go against what a Nobel Prize-winning economist and what Stephen Harper, his former leader and the former prime minister of Canada, would say and endorse?
Mr. Speaker, actually, Mr. Harper does not support a carbon tax and I can tell the member why.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I will send you the link. There's a video.
Hon. Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, we have a perfect example in Canada of a failed carbon tax policy, which is in my home province of British Columbia. It introduced a carbon tax back in 2008 with three promises.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Like you did.
Hon. Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, he is heckling me.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
There was heckling on both sides. I would appreciate it if we respect the person who is speaking, whether he or she is asking the question or answering the question.
The hon. member for Abbotsford.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that admonishment.
In 2008, the British Columbia government of the day, which was a Liberal government by the way, made three promises about the carbon tax in B.C.
First, it would be revenue neutral. In other words, we would take one dollar out of one pocket and put it back in the other pocket of the taxpayer. For a law that was in place, what is to date? Is the tax revenue neutral? No, it was eliminated, and it is now a cash cow for the government.
The second promise that was broken was that it would be capped at $30 per tonne of emissions. That promise was broken. Today that tax is $40 per tonne and going up every year.
The third promise was that it would reduce overall carbon emissions in B.C., but today those emissions continue to go up and up.
These three broken promises prove the point that carbon taxation does not work.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
One thing is certain: Once the Conservatives sink their teeth into something, they hold on tight and do not let go. Unfortunately, they do not have an alternative plan.
The Liberal government is being hypocritical. It says one thing and then buys a pipeline. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have been criticizing the price on pollution and acting as though we can continue to pollute without any consequences for future generations. They have no plan.
I would like my colleague to tell me what he will do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one more sleep and the member will be able to see our climate change plan, our environment plan, writ large. We believe it will give Canada the best chance of meeting the Paris targets. Am I going to scoop our leader with that announcement? Of course, I am not.
However, I believe the member is genuine in wanting to make progress in addressing our emissions. They are global emissions, by the way, because this is a global challenge that requires a global response. Canada is perfectly positioned to deliver on that response.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Abbotsford for his contribution to our country and to our debate today by putting forward his motion, one I am happy to speak to and support. To me, this is an important subject, and I will explain why.
Climate change has had a serious impact on my riding and on British Columbia in general. I would like to give an example. The science shows us that our winters are not as cold as they once were. Because our winters are not as cold, the mountain pine beetle has managed to survive through the winter months and not be killed off. This, in turn, has allowed the pine beetle to thrive, and in turn, it has devastated our forests. That has created two problems. One is an economic problem. Throughout B.C. and my riding, we have had a number of lumber mill closures. This can have a devastating impact on small rural communities. It is simply devastating. One of the reasons for these mill closures is a lack of fibre. Because too much forest has been killed off by the pine beetle, there is not enough supply for timber. That is one major problem.
The second major problem is that all this dead timber, combined with our hot summers, has basically created a powder keg of fuel for a wildfire. Make no mistake. Be the cause lightning or humans, when there is a forest fire, this dead beetle wood is producing wildfire activity the likes of which British Columbia has never seen. This not only hurts tourism but can also harm human health. Those with respiratory issues have serious problems dealing with all the smoke and ash. There is also a loss of homes and small businesses and a massive cost for fighting those fires. It is all part of a serious problem.
However, here is the thing: the carbon tax does not stop this. It does nothing to help relieve the situation. The Liberals like to pretend otherwise, but after 10 years of having the carbon tax in British Columbia, our forest fire situation only looks more dire.
Let us overlook that fact for a moment and see if the carbon tax is working otherwise in British Columbia. Total greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. fell in the period between 2004 and 2008. Much of this paralleled what happened nationally with greenhouse gas emissions, and this was mainly attributed to the worldwide economic meltdown that occurred during the later part of that time frame.
In the summer of 2008, former premier Gordon Campbell introduced Canada's first carbon tax in the run-up to the 2009 B.C. general election. The B.C. NDP opposed the carbon tax at that time.
What has happened in B.C. since the carbon tax was introduced in late 2008? It is a great question. I hate to break this fact to the Liberal government, but total greenhouse emissions in British Columbia have gone up. Yes, they have gone up. In fact, there has been a 1.5% increase in emissions in B.C. since 2015 alone. Let me repeat that for the benefit of the Minister of Environment. Since 2015, there has been a 1.5% increase in emissions in British Columbia, despite its having a carbon tax. In other words, the carbon tax is not working.
We have also discovered something else. It is called carbon leakage. What is carbon leakage? Let me give members an example. In 2008, when the carbon tax was first introduced in British Columbia, basically 100%, of all cement used in British Columbia was manufactured in British Columbia. Well, why not? Concrete is not exactly a lightweight, inexpensive product to import and then transport to other jurisdictions. What happened when B.C.-produced concrete became subject to a carbon tax in 2008? Naturally, it became more expensive. By 2014, B.C.-produced concrete accounted for roughly 65% of all concrete used in British Columbia, because cheaper concrete was being imported from jurisdictions with no carbon tax. That is a 35% loss of market share in B.C.'s own market.
Of course, our federal Liberal government knows all about this. That is why, quietly last summer, the Liberals started giving carbon tax exemptions to some of Canada's biggest polluters. However, there is no exemption for small business in their plan, or in my home province, for the average middle-class family. In fact, in B.C., the NDP has now turned the carbon tax into a billion-dollar tax grab that hits families and small business owners hard.
Ironically, the B.C. government is intervening in the carbon tax jurisdictional litigation, arguing that if other provinces do not have a carbon tax, B.C.'s competitiveness will be harmed. Of course, the same principle applies to Canada, where we try to compete with some of our major trading partners that do not have a carbon tax.
This is how carbon leakage is defined in British Columbia:
industries that compete with industry in countries that may have low or no carbon price. If BC industry loses market share to more polluting competitors, known as carbon leakage, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
To recap what we know from the British Columbia example, after 10 years of having a carbon tax, it has done nothing to prevent the serious climate-change-related problems we are facing in British Columbia. Worse yet, the evidence also shows that it has done nothing to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions. They have actually increased since the B.C. carbon tax was created. It makes British Columbia less competitive, all the while letting major polluters off the hook. Basically, all the carbon tax has done in British Columbia is act as a giant tax grab for the NDP government.
Here is another fact I will share on this point. The B.C. LNG project we often hear the Liberal government boast about, which, by the way, was first approved by the previous government, has been totally exempted from carbon tax increases. The only way this went forward was that it was totally exempted from future carbon tax increases, and it will be a major contributor to increasing B.C. greenhouse gas emissions. Honestly, none of this reconciles, and the facts clearly show that.
If members doubt the facts and evidence from British Columbia, look no further than our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer, who last week made it very clear that the present course of the Liberal government will completely and totally fail to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets it has set, unless, of course, the Liberal government desires to massively increase the carbon tax load for everyday citizens. That point could not have been made any clearer.
We are seeing mixed messages from the Liberal government on this. Will the Liberals or will they not massively raise the carbon tax if re-elected? We do not get clear answers.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us here with this motion, because it states the obvious. The carbon tax is not working. It continues to fail, so let us do away with this carbon tax so that we can focus on and find other ways to reduce our emissions. We have a collective responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. We cannot sit back, watch this carbon tax continue to fail and try to pretend that we are taking action on reducing emissions, when in reality, we are not. If anything, we are taking action to provide more carbon tax exemptions to major polluters, and much like the B.C. LNG project, to major projects.
We can pretend that this is not occurring, but it is. Why did the Liberal government provide a 95.5% carbon-tax discount on dirty coal power in the province of New Brunswick? Does anyone seriously believe that making coal power cheaper is any way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? It is a total farce, and we sell ourselves and our future short if we continue to play that charade.
I care about our children's future as much as the members opposite, so let us stop the charade today. Let us admit that the carbon tax has failed. Not only has it failed, but it continues to fail. Yes, it may work in theory if everyone were on the same page, but carbon leakage is proof that we are not. Let us do away with the carbon tax and instead let us work together and focus on real, tangible ways to reduce our emissions and lower our carbon footprint.
That is why I am going to be voting in support of this motion today. Again, I thank the member for Abbotsford for his leadership on this file.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way for a stimulating discussion on this today. I was thinking of my middle daughter when he was talking. When she was small and we were living in Winnipeg, she hated putting on her coat in the wintertime. When we would get her coat on, she would struggle and struggle. The last thing she wanted was to wear her coat in the wintertime.
It seems that it is the same with the Conservative Party members. The last thing they want to do is work on climate change. Every time we bring up climate change, they struggle, scream and get upset about climate change, but part of the program is putting a price on pollution. It is part of a 50-point program that also includes incentivizing businesses, municipalities, hospitals and universities to save on their use of energy.
Could the member comment on the rest of our program? We have a plan. We are still waiting for their plan. Maybe he could give us a hint of what part of their plan might also contribute to fighting climate change.
Mr. Speaker, many of us here have had the experience of raising children. It is a difficult situation. It is best left to individual parents to raise their children. That is something Conservatives believe parents can do best.
However, when we come to this place, we should be prepared to talk about what works and what does not. We have a Parliamentary Budget Officer who has said that with the tools that have been presented so far by the current government, particularly the so-called price on carbon the Liberals continue to talk about, we will not meet the Paris targets by 79 million megatonnes. That is a failure of the government.
We will be presenting our full plan. I am mindful that the member in his “Real Change” platform had a single paragraph about working with provinces to deal with an international problem. We have provinces that are taking the government to court. We have provinces that are pushing back. The current government has done nothing to work with the provinces. We cannot afford to simply continue to say that father knows best and push on the provinces and not find ways to work together to deal with this issue. The provinces have the majority of the policy levers when it comes to energy, transportation and housing. This member should realize that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge a statement my hon. colleague from British Columbia made about the efficacy of the carbon tax.
In preparation for this debate on this major issue, I requested that the Library of Parliament provide my office with the impact of the British Columbia carbon tax on emissions. Since it was introduced in 2008, there has been a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia of 2.2%. The number in 2008 was 63,737 kilotonnes, and the number in 2016, the most recent year we have numbers for, was 62,264 kilotonnes. I believe the kilotonne is the measurement being used. That is a 2.2% reduction.
The member said that he did not think the carbon tax had an impact. That is clearly wrong. It has had an impact. By the way, one would expect carbon emissions to have gone up significantly in that time period, so the fact that there is actually an overall reduction shows that the carbon tax does work.
However, I agree with the member that the carbon tax on its own is not going to be sufficient. I personally believe that we are facing a climate crisis. We have to use every single policy tool we can to deal with this. That is carbon sequestration, a carbon tax, a cap and trade system and retrofitting. We need conservation efforts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has sent out alarm bells that should have every single legislator in every chamber like this in the world absolutely riveted, because we have 11 years to have reductions of 45% over 2010. The member is right. We are not meeting these targets. The previous Conservative government did not meet the targets, nor has the current Liberal government.
Is the member's plan going to meet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 45% over 2010 levels? Yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, when one of the NDP members rose on this debate a few weeks ago, I quoted specifically from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change in British Columbia. It actually said that the last year of data we had indicated a 1.5% increase in emissions. It is on the B.C. government website. I suggest that the member look at it and he can inform himself. Obviously, during the economic recession post-2008, we saw a decline in industrial activity. The member might want to familiarize himself with the latest part of the cycle we are in.
When it comes to the plan, the Parliamentary Budget Officer evaluated the current government's plan and found it wanting. That is where we need to have the starting point. We will be presenting our plan, and the member can choose which plan he thinks is best.
Mr. Speaker, as always it is an honour to rise in this House and speak about the topic of climate change, which is near and dear to my heart and something I consistently hear about from my constituents.
I am particularly inspired by the voices of the young Canadians I represent in Central Nova, who have brought this issue to the fore and insist that legislators at the municipal, provincial and federal levels take collective action to combat the existential threat that climate change represents.
For me, the starting point in this conversation is that climate change is not only real but primarily driven by humans' industrial activity. Sometimes, when we talk about climate change, we are guilty of causing apocalypse fatigue, which causes people to feel they cannot do anything meaningful about it. At other times, we dig into the technical details about CO2 concentration being at 415 parts per million, and we lose people's attention.
These are all important things to be addressing, but it is important to explain to Canadians that the consequences of climate change are very real. We are feeling them today, but we have an opportunity and, in my mind, an obligation to do something about it. We simply need to implement the solutions we already know exist, which can make a difference by bringing our emissions down and preventing the worst consequences of climate change from impacting our communities.
We are all familiar, of course, with the consequences of climate change. We see them in our own communities. On the east coast we have experienced more frequent and more severe storm surges and hurricanes. Recently my colleagues from New Brunswick have shown me pictures of their communities, which were literally under water. We can see the forest fires ravaging communities in western Canada, the heat waves in Quebec and Ontario that are taking the lives of Canadians, and the melting ice sheets in Canada's north. There is not a corner of this country that has not been impacted by the environmental effects of climate change.
I mentioned this during the debate yesterday as well, but the consequences are not purely environmental; they are social and economic as well. We see entire communities that have been displaced because we continue to build them in flood zones. Floods that used to take place every few hundred years are now taking place every few years.
We see indigenous communities that have traditionally practised a way of life that involved hunting cariboo, for example. That may no longer be an option because of the combined impacts of human activity and climate change on the species they have traditionally relied on to practise their way of life.
I do not have to look all across the country; I can see the economic impacts of climate change in my own backyard. We rely heavily on the lobster fishery in Nova Scotia. I represent both the eastern shore and the Northumberland Strait, which have vibrant lobster fisheries today that represent nearly $2 billion in exports for our provincial economy.
However, when we look a little south, to the state of Maine, we have seen a decrease of 22 million pounds in their catch over the past few years due to a combination of things like rising ocean temperatures, deoxygenation of the gulf region, and other environmental factors that are having a very real impact.
We are seeing a drop in industrial production and manufacturing in places that have been impacted by forest fires, and when we go for lengthy periods with droughts, we know that our agricultural sector suffers. There is a very real consequence to inaction on climate change in the prevention of economic activity. We know there are solutions. We have an obligation to implement the most effective ones that we know exist.
This brings me to the current motion, which attacks both the efficacy and affordability of our plan to put a price on pollution. I have good news for the members opposite. In fact, we know that putting a price on pollution is the most effective thing we can do to help reduce our emissions. We have identified a path forward on the advice of science, facts and evidence, including world-leading expertise, to ensure that as we put forward a plan that brings our emissions down, the affordability of life is not only not impacted but in fact made a little better for Canadian families.
Over the course of my remarks, I want to touch on the efficacy of carbon pricing. I will talk about some of its benefits and address the affordability, but also highlight some other measures we are implementing. We know that pricing alone is likely insufficient to get us where we need to be, but the attack built into the motion, that our government does not have a real plan, rings hollow from a party that has yet to produce a plan of its own.
I will take a step back and explain in broad strokes what carbon pricing really involves. There are more or less two different ways one can put a market mechanism to price pollution. One is a cap-and-trade system, where one sets an overall cap and industrial players that exceed their credits can buy credits from those that have reduced emissions, in order to bring emissions down across society over time. The other, perhaps simpler, way is to put a price on the thing one does not want, which is pollution, so that people buy less of it. If one puts a price on pollution and people buy less of it but the revenues are returned to households, life can be made more affordable for a majority of families. In a nutshell, that is how it works.
We know it works. We have seen other jurisdictions implement these solutions and have monumental successes. In the United Kingdom, which imposed a price on pollution over and above the European Union's cap-and-trade system, there was a rapid transition from coal-fired power plants to other, less-emitting sources. The United Kingdom has achieved magnificent reductions in recent history, in part because of the way it used a market-based mechanism with a price on pollution.
The example of British Columbia came up previously. One of the members who spoke earlier indicated that emissions have gone up to 1.5% and dismissed it as not possibly working. I commend my NDP colleague, who noted that one should not be cherry-picking data the way that member did. In fact, there has been a 2.2% reduction since the price on pollution came into place. More importantly, when we look at the example of British Columbia, despite population growth and serious economic development we can see that the per capita rate of consumption of greenhouse gases has actually come down significantly.
The report of the Ecofiscal Commission, which studied this in depth, estimates that emissions in British Columbia are 5% to 15% lower than they would have been had no price been put on pollution in the first place. Five per cent to 15% is a serious reduction from one policy tool alone, and we know we can do better by doing more.
However, it is not just the practical examples of which we have empirical evidence that show that this in fact works. We have seen support from folks who really know what they are talking about. Last year's Nobel Prize for economics went to Professor William Nordhaus for his development of the kind of approach we are now seeking to implement in Canada. In fact, he pointed specifically to the example in British Columbia of the kind of model that could work best.
Professor Nordhaus has identified a way to ensure a price is put on pollution, so that what we do not want becomes more expensive and people buy less of it, but affordability is maintained by returning the revenues to households. It is common sense when one thinks about it. It is quite straightforward, and it works.
Mark Cameron, Stephen Harper's former director of policy, has pointed to the fact that this is the right path forward. Even Doug Ford's chief budget adviser testified before the Senate, in 2016 I believe, saying something to the effect that the single most effective thing we can do to transition to a low-carbon economy is to put a price on pollution. Preston Manning has been arguing for this kind of approach for years.
When the partisan lens is removed, we see folks on different sides of the aisle who have a strong history with the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, who all support this approach because they know it is the most effective thing we can do. In particular, I point to the recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision that upheld the federal government's constitutional power to implement a price on pollution across Canada in provinces that would not come to the table with a serious plan. The court said that it was undisputed, based on the factual record before the court, that GHG pricing is not just part and parcel of an effective plan to combat climate change but also an essential aspect of the global effort to curb emissions.
This is why the court found it to be a national concern that some provinces would not have pricing, which gave rise to the federal government's authority to implement a plan. It is an essential aspect of the global effort to reduce emissions. That part was even put in italics, specifically so legislators would see that this is so important. We have to move forward with it if we are going to take our responsibilities seriously.
However, these are not the only voices; I can point to a number of others. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the opposition members have quoted ad nauseam in this House, has said that putting a price on pollution is the most effective way to reduce our emissions. He also pointed out something I hope we will get into during questions and comments, which is that eight out of 10 families will be better off in jurisdictions in which the federal backstop applies. This is because we are returning the revenues directly to households. The only families who will pay more than they get back in the form of a rebate are the 20% in the highest-earning households in Canada. I believe it maxes out at $50 a year for the wealthiest families in Saskatchewan.
Meanwhile, in various provinces there will be rebates of between $250 and $609, depending on how much pollution is generated in those provinces. The bottom line is that eight out of 10 families, no matter which province they live in where the federal system applies, will receive more in the form of a rebate than their cost of living will go up. Therefore, the argument that this is about affordability rings hollow.
I point out in particular the comments this past weekend by Pope Francis, who has no political agenda. He is not a Liberal or Conservative when it comes to Canadian politics, but he has explained that carbon pricing is essential to combat climate change. He pointed to the fact that the world's poor and the next generations are going to be disproportionately impacted. There is a sense of injustice about it, that we are shoving this burden onto future generations, onto the world's poor and onto the world's developing nations. It is not right. Canada has an obligation to play a leadership role and take care of things at home as we help the world transition to a low-carbon economy.
If we move forward with a plan to put a price on pollution, there are also economic benefits. Again, citing the example of British Columbia, there has been a net job gain in that province as a result of its aggressive plan to tackle climate change. The Government of Saskatchewan, in an attempt to gain political support for its fight against the plan, commissioned a report that showed there would be a very limited economic impact. It then tried to bury the report; it did not want the evidence to get out because it conflicted with its ideological narrative that carbon pricing would somehow damage the economy. The reverse is true. It can help spur innovation and take advantage of the new green economy, which Mark Carney has flagged as representing a $26-trillion opportunity globally. If Canada is on the front end of that wave, we can expect to have more jobs in our communities as the world transitions to a global low-carbon economy.
I want to touch on affordability in particular, because this is front of mind for me. In my constituency office, the power company is on speed dial, because so many constituents come to my office not knowing where to turn. We know the cost of living has gone up over time. That is why we are trying to tackle those measures. Poverty has come down by 20%, which means 825,000 Canadians are not living in poverty today who were when we took office in 2015. The allegation that we are somehow seeking to make life more expensive is not true.
We understand the struggles of Canadian families who live in Pictou County, or Antigonish or on the eastern shore, places I represent. These are important issues that we need to tackle. That is why we are moving forward, not just with a plan to address climate change that can make life more affordable, but also by introducing measures like the Canada child benefit, which puts more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families and stops sending child care cheques to millionaire families that, frankly, did not need it.
We have moved forward with a boost to the guaranteed income supplement, which puts more money in the pockets of low-income single seniors, some of the most vulnerable folk in the communities I represent, with up to $947 extra a year. That is why we moved forward with a tax cut for nine million middle-class Canadians and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%.
Each of these measures was opposed by the official opposition. To hear them now criticize a plan based on the fact that it will make life more expensive creates some serious cognitive dissonance considering that they voted against all the measures that were making life more affordable.
In particular, this plan, as I have explained a number of times during these remarks, will also put more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families in systems in which it applies. We worked with provinces for years leading up to the implementation of this system. In provinces like mine, Nova Scotia, there is in fact no federal price on carbon. It has come up with a cap-and-trade system that impacts about 20 major industrial polluters and places a modest surcharge on fuel. Nova Scotia's plan was accepted because it showed that it was taking seriously the threat that climate change constitutes.
It is only in provinces that would not come to the table with a serious plan that we are moving forward with it. We do not believe it should be free to pollute the atmosphere anywhere in Canada. The atmosphere belongs to all of us. When people operate industrial facilities that degrade that atmosphere, they should be liable to every Canadian for the damage they have done. That is why they are paying a price on pollution, and that is why citizens deserve the rebate that is paid out of these revenues.
None of this money is being kept by the federal government, contrary to what some of the Conservative members have suggested. If they have problems with the tax being kept by governments on the price of gas, I suggest they speak to some of the Conservative premiers who are currently railing against our plan to put a price on pollution. Those premiers have the ability to take the tax off gas and allow families to keep their hard-earned money. We are making polluters pay and giving that money directly to families.
The great thing is that we can see job growth when we move forward with an ambitious plan to fight climate change. In my community, there are examples like the Trinity group of companies, which is doing incredible work in energy efficiency. It started out with a couple of guys who were really good contractors. They realized an incentive was put in place by different governments, which we have since bolstered at the federal level over the past few years, to help homeowners reduce the costs of energy efficient products, whether smart thermostats, better doors and windows or more efficient heating systems. They use the products that have come down as a result of publicly funded rebates, which are helping homeowners bring their costs of living down by reducing their power bill each month. They have added dozens of positions to their organization.
In the community of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, companies like CarbonCure have developed carbon sequestration technologies that pull carbon out of the atmosphere to inject into concrete products to strengthen them for use in construction.
Speaking of construction, Canada's Building Trades Union has pointed out that as we upgrade our buildings and infrastructure, there is a potential opportunity to create four million new green jobs by embracing the green economy and fighting climate change. Those are serious numbers that will have a real impact on the GDP of Canadians. More important, for families, it is a job that people maybe could not get in the community they came from, so they may not have to move.
These are real, meaningful, human examples that are making a difference, not just for our economy but for families.
The motion on the floor suggests that we repeal our price on pollution and implement a real plan. I would like to draw to the attention of the House to the fact that there is so much more to our plan than this one policy onto which the Conservatives have latched. In fact, there are over 50 measures. I am happy to lay a few of them out for the House.
By 2030, and not many Canadians appreciate this, we are on track to have 90% of our electricity in the country generated from non-emitting resources. That is remarkable. We have made the single largest investment in public transit in the history of our country. This will encourage more Canadians to take public transit rather than drive their cars, so we can become more efficient and life can be made more convenient at the same time. We are phasing out coal. We are investing in energy efficiency. We are investing in green technology.
At St. Francis Xavier University, of which I am a proud alumnus, the flux lab, with Dr. David Risk, is developing instrumentation that is putting researchers to work. It has been commercialized because the oil and gas sector has realized that by using this instrumentation, it can detect gas leaks at a distance and increase its production without increasing its emissions. It is capturing gas that is currently leaking out of its infrastructure.
We are moving forward with these serious things.
In addition, we are implementing new regulations on methane to help reduce the fastest-growing contributor to global GHG emissions.
On the same piece, pursuant to the Montreal protocol, in Kigali, we have adopted a single new measure that will result in a reduction of methane emissions which will have the equivalent of a 0.5° reduction in emissions on its own. We are also adopting a clean fuel standard and vehicle emissions standards.
We are moving forward with the most ambitious plan in Canadian history to protect nature in Canada. This is serious. We need to take the opportunity before us to do something to protect our threatened ecosystems. With over $1.3 billion invested in protecting nature, we will more than double the protected spaces across our country.
Of course, we recently announced we would be moving forward with a ban on our harmful single-use plastics. At the same time, we are putting the responsibility of managing the life cycle of those products on manufacturers.
Most of these policies have a few things in common. They will help reduce our emissions and protect our environment, yet the Conservatives oppose them every step of the way. I have taken hundreds of questions in question period about our plan for the environment. Not once have I received a question from the Conservatives about what more we could do for the environment. It is always an attempt to do a less.
The fact is that we cannot turn back the clock. I look forward to seeing the Conservative plan tomorrow. When I hear the kind of commentary from members of Parliament on their side, it gives me great cause for concern. I doubt whether we can even start the conversation about what solutions are most appropriate when I hear comments that deny climate change is primarily due to human activity. This is not a time to be debating the reality of climate change; it is a time to be debating solutions and, more important, implementing solutions.
I want to encourage everyone at home to start pulling in the same direction. If people have children, they should talk to them at the dinner table. It is the most effective thing they can do to help change their minds about the importance of climate change. The kids are all right. They know what is going on and they want us to take action.
If people have the opportunity to take part in a community cleanup, to take part in a solo or co-operative cleanup, to take part in whatever is going on in their community, I urge them to embrace it. We are running out of time. We want to implement a solution to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. I only hope the Conservatives get on board.
Mr. Speaker, the government in its first two years before introducing its so-called price on carbon, gave places like Nova Scotia large exemptions from their coal-fired facilities so they could go much longer than was originally brought into place by the previous government.
The second thing that group has done, with its so-called price on carbon, is to exempt 95.5% for coal-fired production, dirty coal, in New Brunswick.
The member says that somehow the Liberals are the white knights who will deal with these issues. They are actually the government that is giving massive exemptions to large emitters. How do they square that?
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. A myth has been peddled by both the Conservatives and the NDP about supposed exemptions for large emitters under our system. Let me be crystal clear. There are no exemptions for large emitters under our system. They pay into a system that is called an output-based pricing system which requires them to pay a price—
An hon. member: You're playing with words.
We were doing so well. I want to remind hon. members that a question was asked. When the presentation was being done, it was perfect. Nobody said a word, maybe a couple of chirps here and there, and now we have started up again.
I want to remind hon. members that whoever is speaking, whether it is a member on the opposition side or the government side, to try to give that member the respect he or she deserves, just as all members would expect.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy good conversation with my friends and colleagues.
To be crystal clear, there is no exemption for big emitters under our system. They pay at the exact same price that everyone else does under what is called the output-based pricing system. We have established a system that allows us to move forward with a price for big emitters that does not jeopardize their competitiveness.
One of the points of differentiation between our plan and the NDP's plan is that without this kind of system, as the Ecofiscal Commission has pointed out, the NDP will hurt the Canadian economy by causing carbon leakage and also increase global emissions because big polluters will be incentivized to leave Canada.
With respect to the example in New Brunswick, it is because that province is dealing with an industry that is operating better than the industry standard. In Nova Scotia, the member is right that we do have an equivalency agreement with that province to help it transition off coal, still 28 years faster than the Conservatives would have it transition. It is because we are trying to reflect the realities after we have had discussions with the different provincial governments.
I have a meeting later today. We are going to discuss how we can accelerate the phase out of coal in Nova Scotia, because it is the right thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's speech and his endless litany of ineffective half-measures. I am not impressed.
After four years in power, the Liberal record on the environment is absolutely abysmal, especially when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Here are some figures from Environment Canada. In December 2017, officials forecasted that the Liberals would miss the Conservatives' targets by 66 megatonnes. A year later, no progress had been made. In fact, it was then estimated that they would miss the targets by 79 megatonnes.
The Liberals can pat themselves on the back and adopt emergency motions in the House of Commons all they like, but the fact remains that they are going to miss the Conservative targets set by Stephen Harper. Furthermore, they want to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, which they bought with our money. In terms of pollution, it would be like putting 3 million more cars on our roads every year. That is the Liberal record.
I doubt that voters will be fooled in the upcoming election.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there were a number of different issues built into that question. I will do my best to address them.
The starting point with the use of 2017 is a good example of cherry picking data that misrepresents the facts on the ground. Due to the forest fires in western Canada in 2016, an artificial suppression of the emissions in Canada led to a low that did not necessarily fit the trend. If we look at a longer time horizon, we are trending in the right direction.
With respect to the target to which my hon. colleague has referred, we will hit that target, and this is important. To the extent there is a gap, it does not factor in certain measures that have not been modelled, measures like the single largest investment in public transit in the history of Canada, measures such as the adoption of zero emission vehicles with the subsidies that we have just put in place to bring their cost down and measures like investments in carbon sequestration technologies that will continue to have uptake over the next while.
It also presumes that we will take absolutely no action over the next 11 years, which is patently false on its face.
The member said that some of our measures would be ineffective, and I forget the precise word, and I am curious. The NDP is now campaigning on the ideas that we started implementing several years ago.
I do not know how he squares that circle. On the one hand, he says they are ineffective. On the other, he says the NDP will implement about half of them should it form government.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can comment on how it is possible that the Conservative Party of Canada will come forward with a real plan tomorrow to address the environmental challenges. Yesterday the Conservatives voted against declaring a climate emergency.
Only a couple of weeks ago, the member for Milton, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, said that the bottom line was there was no connection between climate change and major indicators of extreme weather, that the continual claim of such a link was just misinformation employed for political or rhetorical purposes.
How are we ever to take seriously a Conservative plan when comments like these are being made by the the deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, my ordinary disposition is one of optimism and hope, but I do not have much cause for hope when it comes to the plan we will see later this week. I note that the Conservatives are tabling it in the very last week of Parliament when it will not be subject to scrutiny by the parties in the House during question period.
With respect to the recent tweet put out by the deputy leader of the opposition, I found it unfortunate. I know her to be a reasonable person. I believe she thinks we should take action on climate change. However, to put these harmful messages out there for political gain when it does a disservice to the debate and discourse around climate change in Canada is disheartening. I note in particular that the Conservative leader was recently confronted about his desire to avoid tackling the question of whether there was a connection between climate change and severe weather. This has just become the norm.
I look at comments from different Conservative MPs over the the past few years. One member visited school children in Alberta and told them that CO2 was just plant food, not pollution, saying there was no consensus on this. Some members want to pull out of the Paris agreement. I was in a debate on social media with one of the Conservative members, who cited a pile of snow in Saskatchewan in February as evidence that climate change was not real.
It is unfortunate, but this is the tenor of the debate. Members from British Columbia have suggested that climate change and the rising temperature is similar to more people just being in a room giving up body heat. If they cannot acknowledge that a primary cause of climate change is human industrial activity, then they are not taking part in the debate at all. I do not anticipate the Conservative plan will be worth the paper it is written on.
Mr. Speaker, one of the main concerns the Conservatives have raised is that if we have a carbon price, it could prompt a carbon-intensive industry to move to jurisdictions with weaker environmental standards, eliminating Canadian jobs and potentially increasing global emissions. The government is trying to address this problem of carbon leakage with output-based rebates to industry that keeps its production here. Another approach to this problem would be carbon border adjustments, extending the carbon price to the carbon content of imports and rebating it on Canadian-made exports.
I would like to invite the parliamentary secretary to comment a bit further on the importance of maintaining a level playing field between Canada and countries that do not price emissions.
Mr. Speaker, as always, I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful approach to politics. Perhaps the CCF does not suffer from the same defect of partisanship that the rest of us do at times in the House.
He is absolutely right. The phenomenon of carbon leakage is real. If a system is created that does not protect against trade-exposed industries potentially fleeing Canada, we will have the exact kind of consequence that the Ecofiscal Commission warned would result if we implemented the NDP's approach, which does not adequately take this into effect. I read with interest the editorial the hon. member put forward just last week on this subject.
We established a price on pollution for large emitters, which they would have to pay. Then industry by industry identified a threshold of the rebate that they would get back, should they perform above the industry average with respect to reducing their emissions. To the extent that someone can actually significantly beat the industry average, they can receive a credit. To the extent some just continue on with business as usual, they will pay a significant price. We have used the market to create an incentive for large emitters to reduce their emissions over time, without putting them at risk of having jobs leave the country.
I would be happy to carry the conversation on with the member after.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my fantastic colleague from Courtenay—Alberni. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on all the work he does to promote cycling in this country and help reduce plastic pollution. My colleague from British Columbia is doing an outstanding job.
I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech, and I want to come back to the final point he raised when responding to our Conservative colleague's question. Indeed, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said, certain industrial sectors in Canada are getting free passes and handouts in terms of the price they will have to pay for their huge contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. This is all being given to them because of fears that businesses in certain highly competitive industrial sectors will want to move away or shut down their operations in Canada.
In his argument, the parliamentary secretary used the market argument to justify giving these companies a free pass allowing them to emit 10% more greenhouse gases before having to pay. What he fails to mention is that there is absolutely no verifiable objective criterion to justify this exemption, this gift being given to certain industrial sectors. In theory, the underlying logic to this exemption could be justified, but it is impossible to know what objective, rational, and independent criteria the Liberal government is basing its reasoning on. Several environmental activists have already asked this question. This approach lacks credibility. Again, it looks like the Liberals are handing out gifts to their corporate industry friends.
I find it interesting that we are having this discussion on the price of pollution. I have to hand it to the Conservatives, they are certainly consistent. When they sink their teeth into something, they do not let go. They do not like the idea of putting a price on pollution, and they are moving the same opposition motion that they presented a month or two ago, as though nothing else were going on in our society or our country. It seems to be the only thing they want to talk about until the election. Suits me. Let's talk about it.
I am the NDP environment critic. I am pleased to speak about our extraordinary platform called “The Courage to Do What's Right”, which the NDP leader recently presented in Montreal. It is an extraordinary and comprehensive document that includes a multitude of measures to address the challenges of tackling climate change. I will come back to that in a few minutes.
If there is one thing we can fault the Liberals for it is their lack of coherence. The government sheds crocodile tears and plays the violin while talking to us about future generations, the importance of the planet, nature, frogs and little birds, but it does nothing. It has been dragging its feet for years. The Liberals' environmental record does not live up to its promises of 2015 or the speeches it continues to give. What happened last night is proof of that. The Liberal government made us vote on a motion declaring a climate emergency. That is important. Canada is a G7 country. The government took the initiative to declare a climate emergency and to say that we must roll up our sleeves and take action. However, the Liberals had us vote on this motion the day before the announcement about the Trans Mountain expansion. That took some nerve. It does not make sense.
The Trans Mountain expansion will triple oil sands production, which will rise from 300,000 to 900,000 barrels a day. This project poses an extremely serious threat to British Columbia's coastline and has no social licence. Many indigenous communities oppose it, as does the Government of British Columbia. It is completely incompatible with the Liberal government's ambition to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. To increase oil production from 300,000 to 900,000 barrels a day is equivalent to putting another three million cars on the road.
The government's climate change plan involves putting three million more gas-guzzling vehicles on our roads. Someone pinch me; I must be imagining things. This is a nonsensical and wrong-headed plan.
It is no wonder that groups like ENvironnement JEUnesse are suing the Liberal government over its reckless disregard for future generations. Young people are concerned, they are protesting, they are organizing and they are taking the government to court because it is not fulfilling its responsibilities. It is not taking the courageous decisions needed to do our part to combat climate change, the greatest challenge of our generation. If we do not get greenhouse gas emissions under control and limit global warming to 1.5°C to 2°C, the consequences will be extremely costly. There will be social, human, financial and economic consequences. We cannot wash our hands of this. We cannot stand by. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is all talk and no action.
By contrast, the NDP, with our leader, the member for Burnaby South, has proposed an extremely ambitious and comprehensive plan. I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this plan today, because we are going after the biggest greenhouse gas emitters.
The government's mistake is thinking that taxing carbon or pricing pollution is a magic wand that will fix all problems. This is not the case. It is a necessary tool, sure, but it is not enough. I think this is very important to point out. This is why the NDP has proposed other measures to ensure that we take serious, responsible action. Our commitment is to cut emissions by 450 megatonnes by 2030. This is achievable and is consistent with scientific findings and the IPCC report.
First, we want to take action on housing. We want to complete energy efficiency retrofits on all existing buildings and homes in Canada by 2050. That will save Canadians money and also reduce our carbon footprint. We want to change the building code so that all new buildings are carbon neutral by 2030, meaning they produce no greenhouse gas emissions. This would be a regulatory requirement that would apply across the board. The government has not had the courage to do this, and it does not even seem to be interested in moving in this direction.
Second, there is transportation. The transportation sector is a major GHG emitter. There are two things we need to achieve. First, we want to electrify personal and freight transportation, and we want to make sure we do both, not just personal transportation. Second, we want to electrify transit.
Electrification of transportation is crucial. We are going much further than the current Liberal government. We pledge to waive the GST on all models of electric or zero-emissions vehicles made in Canada. Not only will this make it easier for consumers to own a zero-emissions electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, but it will also provide an important boost to help the automotive sector make this transition.
Our plan includes major investments in public transit totalling $6.5 billion over the course of the NDP's first term in office. We will work with municipalities to reduce the cost of using public transit. Ultimately, we want public transit to be free, as it is in other places around the world, because we want to encourage people to use public transit more as well as active transit, such as walking and cycling.
Third is renewable energy. This government continues to subsidize oil and gas companies to the tune of billions of dollars a year. That needs to stop. We will divert that money to the renewable energy sector, which is already creating far more jobs in Canada than the fossil fuel sector.
We will make that happen by setting up a climate bank that can issue loans and provide loan guarantees to businesses, investors and people who are building green energy projects and renewable energy developments.
That is the NDP's game plan. I think it is much more ambitious than what any other party in the House has to offer.
Canadians and Quebeckers will judge its merits on October 21.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I was into the speech right up until the end, when the member mentioned the fossil fuel phase-out. The fossil fuel phase-out also includes fossil fuel subsidies for remote communities that need to use diesel until we are able to get them other fuels to generate electricity.
Five out of the seven subsidies that are currently in place have been negotiated out, but a few still remain, such as the one I just mentioned. Could the member talk about the nuances of the fossil fuel phase-out in relation to the types of fossil fuel subsidies we have in place and how critical it is to remove them in a way that does not jeopardize people in remote locations?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for giving me an opportunity to speak to that issue.
Unfortunately, the Liberals often use that argument to attack the NDP's plan. It is not quite accurate. I want to clarify and set the record straight.
Obviously, we are talking about subsidies for big industry and for large oil and gas corporations. We are also talking about changing the mandate of Export Development Canada and using that money to make a public investment in renewable energy. Obviously, the indigenous communities in northern Canada that need diesel to produce electricity would never be negatively impacted by the NDP's plan.
I thank the member for that question.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his remarks.
Obviously, we disagree with about 95% of what he said, but we do agree with the remaining 5%, specifically, when he so rightly pointed out that the Conservatives are logical and consistent, and they are too.
The question I have for my colleague is very simple. We do not believe that putting a price on pollution reduces emissions. That is why we are opposed to the Liberal carbon tax, which has been imposed right across the country, regardless of what the provinces want. That is not right, and at the very least, is shows the government's outrageous disregard for jurisdictional boundaries.
On November 29, the Premier of Quebec tabled in the Quebec National Assembly a document prepared by the Quebec ministry of the environment on greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2016. That document indicates that, even though the carbon exchange was in place, and I know what I am talking about since I voted on it when I was a member of the National Assembly, GHG emissions did not drop in 2014, 2015 or 2016. In fact, they actually increased.
I would like the hon. member to explain to us why he thinks the carbon tax, the tax on pollution, does not lower greenhouse gas emissions, as proven by science and the real and tangible experience of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his highly relevant question. That was not the first time he asked it and I feel as though I will be hearing it a lot over the coming months.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent demonstrated what the NDP has been saying, that the carbon tax alone is not going to have a major impact. A host of factors need to be taken into account and all sorts of efforts need to be made to tackle this. I think there are no two ways about it, and I think it is a shame that the Conservatives oppose putting a price on pollution. I also find it odd that the Conservatives are against using market mechanisms to put pressure on companies or consumers to change their behaviours.
Since the hon. member is Conservative, I imagine he wants to preserve things. Through our plan, we want to protect 30% of all of Canada's land and sea area and convert them into parks and reserves. That is what environmental groups are asking for.
I hope the Conservatives' announcement tomorrow will include a commitment to protect nature here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the NDP plan, which is extremely comprehensive.
The member has yet to speak about the part of the plan that deals with employment insurance and training. I wonder if he could talk a bit about that, since I am very proud of that part too.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga. It was in my notes, but I did not have time to get to it.
Indeed, we are the only party that respects workers in the energy transition, which is unavoidable. We have an plan for EI that involves providing labour force training so that people can qualify for the jobs of the future before the changes are complete.
People will be able to train for a new job in renewable energy, for example, while they are still on the job. We are very proud of that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as we talk about the most important issue that is facing our planet and humanity. The Conservative motion today is:
That, given that the carbon tax will not reduce emissions at its current rate and it is already making life more expensive for Canadians, the House call on the government to repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a real environment plan.
I am going to speak about an environmental plan and how we can get to that conversation. However, before I do that, I want to read an important quote from Greta Thunberg. We all know that she is a leading climate activist globally. She says, “You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
I am going to target my speech to this motion and around the fiscal responsibilities of what is happening today. We know that the PBO did a report in 2014 and guesstimated that the cost of climate emergencies would be about $900 million a year to the Canadian economy. That has actually turned into $1.8 billion, so at the time he very much under-calculated the true cost of climate emergencies and how quickly we were going to see climate change happen. He also predicted that by 2050 we would see the cost escalate to $40 billion to $50 billion. When I think about Greta Thunberg, I think about my children and the children of our country. I think about ensuring that we do not leave them with a huge deficit and that we pay for pollution now instead of expecting Greta and other children around the world to inherit this huge economic deficit.
In our country, we are seeing skyrocketing temperatures that have never been seen before. Canada is the fastest-warming country in the world, now at 1.7° above 1948 temperatures, which is our baseline. We are looking at 2.3°C in the far north, where it is the fastest warming in the world. As I have raised here in the House, we are seeing changing weather patterns. We had the biggest windstorm in Vancouver Island's history in December. In February, we had the biggest snowstorm. In March, we had the biggest drought. We had forest fires that started in May and right now most communities in coastal British Columbia and certainly all over Vancouver Island are on water conservation orders. It is affecting our salmon, our economy, our food security and our way of life.
I will go to the motion. The Conservatives have been opposing the carbon tax. They have raised the carbon tax issue. I did a Library of Parliament research question. About two months ago, the Conservatives had asked 762 questions in question period opposing the carbon tax. Those are lost opportunities to bring solutions to the government and to call on the government to take action on a list of items that the Conservatives could be bringing forward. They are perhaps talking about some of that tomorrow. I am extremely disappointed that the Conservative Party of Canada did not roll out its platform yesterday so that today we could be debating its proposal. It would have been good for a healthy debate. We need to put partisan politics aside and have a healthy debate about this most important crisis that is happening in all of our planet's history.
I am extremely disappointed. The Conservatives point to the government, saying that the Liberals have no real plan, but we still have not heard the Conservatives' plan. This really affects the credibility of today's motion, which is just in opposition.
The Progressive Conservative Party of the past was willing to take action on climate leadership like with acid rain, putting a cost on polluters and ensuring that they paid the price. The Conservatives are not listening to some of their own leaders. Preston Manning is very much in support of a carbon tax, putting a price on pollution and ensuring it is carbon neutral. Therefore, when we look at the changes and evolution of the Conservative Party, I am concerned to see this motion come forward without the Conservatives' plan being presented to us.
We have heard from the Liberal Party about the importance of balancing the environment and the economy. We could not agree more.
However, we hear about the government purchasing a pipeline for $4.5 billion, and now, today, the Liberals are going to consider making a decision. If that decision has not already been announced while I am rising right now, it is to twin the Trans Mountain pipeline and invest $15 billion, which would be the largest purchase by the public in Canadian history in fossil fuel infrastructure, and at a time when we need to go in the other direction and invest in clean energy and renewal. Therefore, I am extremely disappointed to hear the government talk about balancing the environment and the economy when it could invest $15 billion into clean energy right now and into electrifying our country. There are so many opportunities and tools that the government has to bring our emissions down and take real climate action.
When I look at jurisdictions around the world, they certainly differ from the beliefs of my friend for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. He believes that the carbon tax in British Columbia and Quebec has not worked when, in fact, they have had the fastest growing economies in our country. In British Columbia, it has been an enormous success. When the member attacks the B.C. Liberal government of the past that brought it in and the B.C. NDP government that is carrying forward an important policy that is supported by the B.C. Green Party, he is taking a shot at all political parties in British Columbia that are united on one thing: knowing that we have to put a price on pollution and that polluters need to pay their fair share. That is just the reality.
We cannot leave it for Greta and other young people in our communities who we are hearing from. The youth climate action, as we have heard, is doing Friday walkouts, joining children from around the world demanding that we take action. By “we”, they mean right here in the House of Commons and leaders from across political parties standing united to take action. They are demanding it. I have children in my riding from G.P. Vanier and Mark R. Isfeld secondary schools in Courtenay who have walked out of school and called on us to bring their important message to Ottawa to be heard here in the House, and I am doing that today. Children in Port Alberni at Wood Elementary School are walking out of school, demanding we take action.
I have been privileged to sit on the climate caucus here in Ottawa, which is an all-party, multi-party caucus, with my good friend for Drummond from the NDP, my friend for Saanich—Gulf Islands from the Green Party, my friend for Repentigny from the Bloc Québécois and my friend for Wellington—Halton Hills from the Conservative Party. It is one opportunity where we actually put our partisan politics aside and become united on an important issue. Sadly, only about 10 or 12 of us show up on a regular basis, and we need more. We need to make it a party so that climate caucuses meet right here in the House of Commons and have a healthy debate about how we move forward and not go backward.
Today, I look at models around the world. California is an excellent model that has taken real action, such as curbing climate emissions on vehicles. Californians have taken a multi-tasked approach where they work with people who are facing real challenges in communities, who are facing huge economic hardship, and shifted that through cap and trade. They have improved their GDP by 37% since 2000 and have reduced emissions by 35%, and that is per capita. This is just another example of a jurisdiction that has taken leadership. Norway has invested in $1 trillion in oil and gas, while our country put $11 billion aside. In Norway, they are earning $50 billion in interest alone and investing in clean energy and strategies that will lower emissions. In fact, 53% of their vehicles are electrified in Norway. Therefore, it can be done. There are 45 countries around the world that have a price on pollution and a carbon tax, as well as an additional 25 jurisdictions, provincial or state, in various countries around the world.
We have heard from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, that we need to reduce emissions by 45% from 2005 levels, and our commitment in Paris, by 2030. We have to take drastic action.
I could speak all day about solutions and creating jobs, clean energy and investing in electrification, and ending subsidies to big oil and gas, which, again, could finance so many opportunities and solutions, such as retrofitting buildings. The number of things that we could do is endless. We could have a full debate about that, and I wish we were.
We are in a climate crisis, and I want to close on what Greta Thunberg had said, “I don't want your hope. I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic [and] act as if the house was on fire.”
We are in the House. Let us act like it is on fire.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to one thing the member said just a few moments ago. He really hit the nail on the head when he said that this should not be an issue that is overly politicized and partisan. Climate change is not a Liberal issue, or an NDP issue or a Conservative Party issue. This is an issue that we face today, and we will not be judged in the future based on which political party we were part of when all these decisions needed to be made. We will be judged on what action we took collectively, as a whole.
Could he comment as to what he sees the need for in the future, and in particular, when we talk about future generations? How will they judge us collectively rather than based on an individual political party that we belong to?
Mr. Speaker, this excellent question draws me back to the all-party climate caucus. Even though a handful of people would show up for it, I know that most members in this House care deeply about this very important issue. I wish we were talking and debating motions about proposals, and how we were going to be moving forward and focusing and drilling down on this specific issue. I am very disappointed that is not where we are spending our time and energy.
Instead of putting partisan politics on whether we support each other's motions or not, we need to find a way to collectively work together and support each other's amendments that are going to move us forward. That is what our children are going to look back on. They are going to look at what we did and whether we took that paradigm shift when it was necessary and were told this by 97% of the scientists around the world. They are going to look at whether we took the action necessary. They are going to find out, we know that, and they are going to hold us to account. Let us hope we do the right thing by moving quickly on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with my friend on biosphere reserve issues, but I disagree with pretty much everything he says. I find the NDP strangely hilarious. On one hand, it tries to defend the steel industry in Hamilton and talks about how important those jobs are, yet it works like crazy to stop pipelines that are made of steel.
I used to have a lot of time for the old NDP and members like Ed Schreyer, the party of the working person and so on. This new NDP is finished when it comes to dealing with the working person. The only party that cares about working people in this country is the Conservative Party.
Today's poll showed what working people have to say. They do not want to pay a carbon tax. The Conservative environmental plan to be released tomorrow will be a groundbreaking plan.
The member talked about electrifying this country. This country will be electrified when that man in that chair is the Prime Minister of this country.
I have two questions for my friend. One, how high does he want the carbon tax to go? I notice that he did not give a number. Two, given that the NDP rails away against the oil and gas industry all the time, will he put his money where his mouth is and recommend every union pension fund and the Canada pension plan divest themselves completely of every single oil and gas investment?
Mr. Speaker, I could speak for a long time to answer that very long question. First of all, when it comes to standing up for workers, I will tell the House what it looks like in my riding. We had the B.C. Liberals in government and raw log exports went up tenfold in 10 years. They shipped jobs out of our province. Now they want to raw ship oil, raw bitumen, instead of refining it in our country and creating Canada's energy security here. They want to ship it out of our country.
Who is standing up for jobs? The only time British Columbians have had jobs stood up for is from New Democrats, who have always been there for labour and ensuring we have job security in our country.
When it comes to a carbon tax, again, this is when partisan politics get in the way. We are not listening to the experts or bureaucrats who know what we need to do. We need to listen to them and do what we need to do to ensure our children are not picking up the tab. There is nothing fiscally Conservative about this.
Mr. Speaker, since the NDP purports to be for the working man, there are a number of people in Skeena—Bulkley Valley who want to know where the NDP stands on the B.C. LNG, which would not have gone forward if the B.C. NDP government had not lowered the taxes on the previous regime established by the B.C. Liberals he purports to dislike so much.
Second, in addition to that tax relief, his party has been completely off the radar on whether it supports it. I can look Greta in the eyes and say that we are reducing global emissions with clean LNG to replace dirty coal. I would hope that she would support that on the science.
Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of questions again. New Democrats do not support oil and gas subsidies, full stop. That is clear. I have no problem saying that right now. The federal NDP has made it very clear.
When it comes to a previous question about the Canada pension plan, no, we should not be investing Canadian pension funds in oil and gas infrastructure. My colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has a bill that he will hopefully be speaking to this week and the member will have an opportunity to speak to that.
I could talk a lot about how we need a bigger debate about this very important issue. This is not enough. With the Conservatives not rolling out their plan and having this discussion now, they totally lack credibility.
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the following motion that Conservatives have put forward:
That, given that the carbon tax will not reduce emissions at its current rate and it is already making life more expensive for Canadians, the House call on the government to repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a real environment plan.
As part of debate on this motion today, I would like to break down what climate change is, what causes it, and then show why the Liberals' carbon tax scheme, which is currently at $40 a tonne, will not reduce emissions in Canada, why it exacerbates global climate change and why it is harmful to our economy, but I will do so in the following context.
Earlier in debate today, the member for Kingston and the Islands said that by raising this motion, the Conservatives were “playing with the lives of future generations”. Recently, something awesome happened to me. I became a stepmom and a step-grandmother. To one tiny, very sticky human being, I am known as nana. My stepson Kepi is watching the debate today and my stepdaughter Tori really cares about this issue because she has a son. This one is for them, not for the member for Kingston and the Islands.
What is climate change and what causes it? Climate change can be broadly described by global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid- to late 20th century onward and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. Climate change is caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, for example industrial emissions, cars, volcanoes, forest fires; deforestation and land use changes; sulfate aerosols; and soot particles or black carbon. If that is what it is and what it is caused by, then how do we reduce it?
Let us start with the Liberal plan, which is the subject of the motion today. To the member for Kingston and the Islands and everyone who has mentioned children as the reason for debate on this issue, Liberals have staked their children's future on a $40-a-tonne price on carbon. If we know what the causes of climate change are, as I read them out, then the policy objective should be to put in place a policy instrument that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. That is what we are managing to, to save the planet for our children. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as legislators to ask, given the severity and gravity of this, if the Liberals' purported plan would work.
Those who have a background in economics will know that there is a concept called price elasticity. I am oversimplifying this, but it means that if a price changes on a good, people will buy more or less of it. When the price changes on goods and people buy more or less of them, those are highly price-elastic goods. When the price of goods increases but people still have to buy them and their consumption does not change, those goods are called price-inelastic.
I am raising this because this concept is super important when we talk about whether a carbon tax would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If an additional price is put on carbon, and I mean things like gas in our tanks, what we use to heat our homes or electricity, if it is produced by fossil fuels, if the government is going to put a price on that and that is its purported way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in theory, Liberals are hoping and praying that people will buy less carbon because the price has increased.
The government has refused to table or make public any sort of data that it has from modelling the price elasticity of carbon. That is really unfortunate, because it does not allow us as legislators, given what is at stake for our kids, to look at whether this is actually going to work.
The reality is that, in Canada, where it is very cold and we have to use fossil fuels to heat our homes and to drive around, as we do not have the same sort of transit infrastructure that a small European country would have, there really is not a substitute good for carbon. In Canada, carbon is price-inelastic, which means that putting a price of $40 a tonne on carbon, as the Liberals have done, is not actually going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
The reason this motion is before the House today is that this is an important issue, but if we want to save the planet for our kids and we know that it is not going to work, then we have to talk about other solutions, not just cling to it out of political expediency.
Members do not have to take my word for it. This year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a non-partisan agent of Parliament whose job it is to do this type of modelling, said that the Liberals' carbon tax would need to be $102 per tonne in every province and territory in order to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by the government, which it is purportedly managing to.
When asked if she would raise the tax to this level, the environment minister said no. Praise the Lord the answer was no. Essentially, the Liberals have said that they are setting a $40-per-tonne price on carbon. They know it is not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and they are not going to raise it to a higher level.
What have we done in four years? The Liberals' own released report this year shows that Canada is actually further from the Paris target than last year. New numbers released by Environment Canada show that Canada is on track to fall 79 megatonnes short of its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target, and that is up from 66 megatonnes last year.
These guys are standing here doing something that I like to call apocalypse porn. It is where people stand and talk about all the terrible things that are happening and focus on that to deflect any sort of legislative inquiry into the efficacy of their policies. We know it is not going to work. That is why the motion is in front of us today. Liberals shut down debate when any of their climate plans are questioned. If they know that their plan will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and they will not raise the tax, then why have they put this forward?
I could speculate at length about that. I think this is a cash grab for the Liberals' out-of-control spending. This is a way for some of the senior cabinet ministers to get on speaking tours and perhaps position themselves for jobs in the industry of people who do not really have plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but make a lot as environmental consultants.
I think that is what they are managing to, and that is really unfortunate, given that the member for Kingston and the Islands appealed to the children. I do not want my kids to see a Liberal carbon plan where what the Liberals are managing to, instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is jobs after politics, because they have said the right things but have done nothing.
I want to debunk some of the talking points that the Liberals have been throwing out today in opposition to the motion. First of all, they are citing the Nobel Prize-winning economist who said that this is the way to fight climate change. Let us go through some of the work that Dr. Nordhaus actually did. He acknowledges that the carbon tax raises many practical design and implementation questions. There are issues with cross-border taxes on carbon emissions and issues with administrative inefficiencies.
In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the cost of administering the carbon tax in Canada, which, as I have shown, is ineffective and does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is $174 million, outside of the cost to Canadians in their pocketbooks. There is no price elasticity data by the Liberals to show that the $40 per tonne would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For comparison, the United Nations report the Liberals often cite actually estimates that the government would need to impose effective carbon prices of $135 to $5,500 per tonne of carbon dioxide by 2030. This does not take into account any sort of economic growth modelling or what would happen to the growth of the Canadian or global economy at this point in time.
There are other things that this professor talks about in terms of some of the inefficiencies and uncertainties that could be applied to the Liberals' ineffective plan.
In one of his books, he writes, “The exact pace and extent of future CO2-induced warming are highly uncertain, particularly beyond the next few decades.” Yes, there might be a consensus view, but he notes, “Science does not proceed by majority vote.”
He notes that costs are key:
People want to be assured...that [carbon emissions] targets are not simply the result of overly concerned environmentalists who are intent on saving their ecosystems at the expense of humans.... People want to compare costs and benefits.... It will not be sufficient to say: “Ecosystems are priceless”, or “We must pay any cost to save the polar bears.”
He also notes that modelling is hard. The Financial Post said:
Of his own computer exercises looking into the implications of climate tipping points, he emphasizes that the assumptions he makes “are at the outer limit of what seems plausible and have no solid basis in empirical estimates of damages”.
This is a complex issue with complex economic modelling, which the Liberals have not explained to Canadians. They have not talked about the fact that the $40-a-tonne price on carbon will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet they are asking Canadians to pay a very high cost for that. It is morally bankrupt and it is wrong.
Nordhaus also notes that all countries, the poorest countries included, need to be included in globally binding emissions structures in order for this to have any effect. However, the Liberals are not doing any of the things cited by this economist, absolutely zero.
A few other things have been raised in debate today. The member for Vancouver Kingsway cited B.C.'s carbon tax. He cited this 2.2% emissions reduction as if it were a victory. However, he is looking at data in the context of the Lower Mainland, B.C. It is warmer there, and there is more public transit. The price elasticity for carbon there might be different from that in rural Saskatchewan. If we are looking for a solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, it has to be a solution that applies to the entire country without harming our economy.
Members opposite brought up Preston Manning. I think Preston Manning's approach on this is absolutely wrong. I question why Preston Manning is doing this. I would even go as far as to speculate that he is doing this to raise funds for his think tank, not to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I would be happy to debate Preston Manning, on any stage, on the same data I have put forward, because this is not right and it will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
Members opposite have also cited the Pope. Members cannot stand in the House of Commons and say that we need a science-based, empirical response to climate change, not produce their own data and then cite religion, from a man who would not even meet the litmus test to run as a Liberal candidate.
Members opposite have talked about revenue neutrality. I will explain this concept for those listening and for my stepson, Kepi. According to the government, and only a Liberal would say that, revenue neutrality means paying a tax and getting an equal amount of money for it. That is crazy, because, as members know, it costs money to take money away. People are paid from the $174-million administrative cost. People will not get the same amount of money back in a cascading tax that affects every single level of production. This has been borne out by data reports in British Columbia, which have shown that the tax has become regressive. It is not revenue-neutral anymore.
Furthermore, with respect to the purported rebate that is going to Canadians, which the government said was factually correct, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in an announcement, showed that the average carbon tax rebate Canadians received in 2018 was significantly lower than the amount the Liberals claimed Canadians would receive.
If it is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions, people are paying more and it is not revenue-neutral, why would we accept this as the status quo when talking about what we are doing for the children? It is just crazy.
In addition, the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens all say that this will not affect the economy. That is bunk. I will tie this into the concept that the Liberal carbon tax actually exacerbates climate change globally, because when we tax goods that are produced under high environmental standards, such as we have in Canada, we actually displace them with goods coming from higher-carbon jurisdictions. A perfect example of this is steel production in Canada.
When our steel producers in Ontario were subject to a carbon tax and Chinese steel was not, and the Chinese government was able to dump steel in Canada at lower prices, that was actually displacing goods in Canada that were produced under lower emissions standards.
We, as a country, can put a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions until the cows come home, but as long as we are buying goods from China, India, Brazil and the United States, we are not going to tackle the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. There needs to be a globally binding system that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, with binding targets, for this to work.
What should we do? Tomorrow, my leader is going to announce a very comprehensive plan that addresses many of these issues. Again, I do not want to scoop him. We need a made-in-Canada solution that addresses the fact that we have a regionalized economy. It is cold here. There are not a lot of substitutes for our products. We have a wealth of technology that needs the right incentives to be adopted. We need energy efficiency standards. This is just me thinking up things.
Our global climate action cannot be the Minister of Environment going on a photo op tour where the most environmentally friendly thing she did was sit at a table covered in grass and drink cocktails. That was not Canada using its role on the world stage to incent climate action.
I want to speak to the Conservative record. The Liberals can say that the Conservatives do not have a plan until the cows come home, but there is one inconvenient truth: there is only one time in Canada's history when we saw a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while the economy grew. It was under Stephen Harper's government, when we imposed regulations on passenger vehicles. I would also argue with the member for Vancouver Kingsway about any reductions they saw in B.C. What about the passenger vehicle reductions we put in place?
The coal-fired regulations on Canada's coal-fired sector came in under a Conservative government, because we believe, and here is the underlying point, that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without undermining the Canadian economy. I am standing here as an Alberta MP, because these guys have used their apocalypse porn to put my riding out of work. The Liberals have done nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have stood here and railed, “What about the children?” The Liberals have done nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they have put my riding out of work. That is morally bankrupt. That is crass politics.
Members should be concerned about what political party they stand for after this debate. It is partisan. The Liberals stand here, apocalypse porn and all, behind policy instruments that do not work, and then they want me to look at my children and my grandchild and say, “Yeah, it was great. It was non-partisan. We did nothing.” That is wrong.
I was actually at an event with Al Gore, and I debated Al Gore. I wish that event had been public, because it was a lot of fun. There is a lot of inconvenient truth about the buzzwords that come out of these communities that do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We have a responsibility to take action in Canada. Conservatives have done that. In fact, the last Liberal government saw greenhouse gas emissions rise by 30% when it was in government. The Liberals are probably on track to do the same here.
This should be partisan, because these guys have made this all about falsehoods, all about policy, and have done nothing to materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that it is time to be debating solutions and implementing those solutions. The kids are all right. They want us to take action. They do. However, a price on carbon that does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and puts people out of work in this country, and allows countries like China to get away with producing goods in a high-carbon jurisdiction while we buy them, is not action. That is politics. That is morally bankrupt.
Since this might be one of the last times I speak in this House in this Parliament, I want to thank all my constituents in Calgary Nose Hill for giving me the opportunity to fight for them. It is important. I would just say to them that we fought hard. We fought the Liberal government at every turn, and we have had great success in holding it to account and making it step back on some of the policies.
Now the time to fight goes to my constituents, so I ask them to join us.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Calgary Nose Hill on her recent marriage and the introduction of children into her family. The first child I became a parent to was also a stepson of mine. I think there is nothing more rewarding in life than the feeling of knowing this new-found love for another human being, in particular one we are so responsible for.
I also thank her for bringing up her economics background. I have a background in economics as well. The problem with her discussion on elasticity is that she is assuming that elasticity will not change over time. The elasticity of a good can change, in particular when substitutes become available for the good. Before the industrial revolution, elasticity was extremely tight on whale oil, because that was the only form of oil being used to create light. If people wanted light, they had to buy that particular type of oil. However, when substitutes and new technology came along, the elasticity changed, and nobody required whale oil anymore. Therefore, I find a great problem with her discussion when she has only presented one side of the economic model. We have to respect the fact that changes will occur as new substitutes come onto the market. When we put a price on something, we have the ability to impact that good in the market, and hence, will see its elasticity change.
Mr. Speaker, a price on carbon at $40 a tonne does not magically change the fact that the most efficient way of getting energy is from a carbon molecule. When we look at Canada, what the member is trying to spin here is that there is a substitute good for gas in a combine or for driving to work in a city that does not have public transit.
Let us talk about what a carbon tax will do to incent substitute goods and the adoption of clean tech. What that $40 a tonne would do is chase investment capital away from Canada in areas where we could be developing receptor capacity for these types of initiatives. For example, in the energy sector, we are seeing capital leave the country, when we should be putting regulations in place to ensure that there is adoption of that technology without pricing us out of competitiveness with the United States.
The member talks about this magical structure, which his own policy upends and uproots and makes impossible to achieve. That is why this is so damaging. That $40 a tonne puts Canada out of the game with respect to adopting clean tech and the development and adoption of substitute goods.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for fighting so hard for her riding. Clearly, the people in her community, like all of us in this House, are important to her.
I have huge concerns. I see B.C. Liberals, who are predominantly conservative, on one side of the Rockies, patting themselves on the back and talking about what a great job they have done implementing a carbon tax, with the fastest-growing economy in the country. They pat themselves on the back for lowering carbon emissions. They have even run elections while they were patting themselves on the back. Then they come to Ottawa, like our former colleague Dianne Watts, who sat in this House as a Conservative and ran for the provincial leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party, and pat themselves on the back for their important work implementing a $40-a-tonne carbon tax in British Columbia, which was supported by all three political parties in B.C.
I am concerned when I hear about this “job-killing carbon tax”, which is the message the Conservatives are putting out, when we know that it has worked in B.C.
The member talked about Scandinavia, but she did not bring forward any solutions or any proposals in her speech. I want to hear some ideas on how we are going to work together on this.
Mr. Speaker, this is the member who just stood up and said that it was a non-partisan issue, and now he is bringing up partisan politics.
I spent an entire component of my speech talking about the fact that B.C.'s carbon tax has been shown to be regressive. It is not revenue neutral. His own colleague cited that it only had a 2.2% impact.
I also went through the fact that Vancouver is not as cold as the rest of the country. It has trains that take people everywhere. That is not the same as rural Saskatchewan. That is why we need to look at a national policy that recognizes that we are a natural resources-based, agriculture-based, very large, cold country.
With respect to solutions, I literally spent the last half of my speech talking about that in very detailed terms. If my colleague wants some further reading to edify himself, I wrote a detailed article in the National Post in 2016 outlining this, which has been shared and re-tweeted many times.
Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting that the Conservative Party opposes a price on pollution. I too, like millions of other Canadians, am waiting for Doug Ford's announcement tomorrow with respect to the national Conservative plan on the environment.
Provinces of different political stripes have adopted a price on pollution. The national plan fills in for those provinces that do not have a plan, or for individuals like Doug Ford, who withdrew from a plan, to ensure that there is a national standard across the country.
Would the member not agree that it is a good thing to have a national plan when it comes to environmental issues? This is the essence of what is taking place: a price on pollution across the country.
Mr. Speaker, that guy treats this like a joke, and it is not. He is building his argument on a premise, which I completely debunked for over 20 minutes. A $40-a-tonne price on carbon is not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Former premier Clark, in 2016, talked about the fact that B.C. might be paying the carbon tax twice under the Liberal government's scheme. That is inappropriate. The fact that so many premiers in this country won mandates to scrap carbon taxes underscores that a punitive tax like this is going to have disproportional effects in different regions of the country, because we have regional economies that have different needs in terms of energy use and energy profiles. That is why we need to move away from a unilateral tax that harms our economy and does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Notice how many times that man mentioned the names of different premiers. That is because we are going into a federal election, and the Liberals are desperately doing everything they can to try to get away from the fact that Canadians are calling them on their lies on this stuff.
Canadians are concerned about climate change. We have had enough. Canadians have had enough. I am more than proud to stand against a failed, do-nothing, empty, virtue-signalling, paper water-box sort of policy that will not reduce climate change in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing my colleague's perspective on the answer given to me by the minister to a question I posed on behalf of an energy-efficient home builder in my riding who is concerned about the increased cost of his products as a result of the carbon tax.
Her response to me was about a company named VeriForm that is doing remarkable things. It reduced its greenhouse gases by 80% and increased its bottom line by $1 million. What she failed to mention was that this happened in 2014, under the Harper government.
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague brought this up. We need to have an economic environment in which we are incenting the adoption and development of clean alternatives. When we have a high-price jurisdiction, where intellectual capital and actual fiscal capital leaves because of punitive policies that do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are not going to see that sort of thing happen. The member is spot on.
I just want to build on the point of empty virtue signalling. The Liberal government dumped millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. It has cut funding for lake cleanup.
My friend Sarah Fischer made a nine-second video last week mocking the Prime Minister's paper box water bottle thing. He could not even name what he was doing to reduce plastic waste in the country. I wonder when he last pumped a tank of gas or went grocery shopping. He is so out of touch. Her video closed with “doesn't work”. To me, there could not have been a more concise, accurate summary of the empty virtue-signalling, do-nothing, environmentally damaging, self-aggrandizing, self-promoting hogwash that we have seen from the Liberal government when it comes to the environment and the economy.
I am so proud to stand up to fight this and fight for better.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and I look forward to his comments after I have had a chance to speak.
Our government is taking climate change seriously. We know that climate change is real and that we have a plan to tackle it. After the Paris Agreement negotiations in 2015, Canada set out a plan to tackle emissions to do its part to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. We spent a year working with provinces and territories, engaging indigenous peoples and listening to Canadians from across the country. Two and a half years ago, we released our national climate plan, the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. I went through that plan last week. It is an 86-page document that says what we are going to do and how we are going to do it.
The plan is designed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. It is going to help us to adapt to a changing climate and spur clean technology and innovation. Our plan includes putting a price on carbon pollution across Canada, something we are talking about today, because we know it is effective and puts money back in the pockets of Canadians. As part of an overall plan, 90% of the revenues that are collected are going straight back to families through their tax returns in provinces where pollution pricing does not exist, such as in Ontario.
The other 10% is going back to businesses to help them reduce their carbon footprints with the climate action incentive fund, which supports these types of projects and measures that are undertaken by SMEs, municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals as well as not-for-profit organizations. The recipients of these funds will benefit from funding projects to decrease their energy usage, save money and reduce carbon pollution. It is also an economic plan for these types of organizations.
Putting a price on carbon is going to reduce emissions by 50 million to 60 million tonnes by 2022. It will also promote innovation, providing incentives to reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency measures.
However, our plan is much more than pricing carbon pollution. Our plan includes over 50 concrete measures in policies, regulations, standards and investments to reduce Canada's emissions, drive clean growth and help Canadians adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The Government of Canada has also invested $28.7 billion to support improvements in public transit. Through this investment, we are making it easier for Canadians to choose lower-emission transit options. The Ontario government has put a freeze on some of these projects, but we are hopeful to see further investments in Guelph, including alternate-fuelled buses through the municipality, greening its fleet, and the incentives in place by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to create charging stations. We invested in 26 new buses a few years ago. Those buses were purchased in a way that is going to help our community to have more people on the bus.
Outside our community, we are looking at the ongoing concern of establishing an all-day, two-way GO train service to and from the GTA. We have a lot of commuters who are getting through traffic on the 401 to get to work and then facing delays getting home to their families. However, the multi-billion-dollar project to expand Ontario's GO Transit network has taken two major steps forward, on May 30 of this year, with the Canada Infrastructure Bank's announcing an investment of up to $2 billion and the province's short-listing four consortia to advance to the next stage of procurement on this project. That project is attracting international investment; it is not all being funded by Canadians through the infrastructure bank, which is one of the measures that our government has brought forward.
The rail expansion that we are talking about is officially known as the GO regional express rail on-corridor project. It involves significant construction work along the greater Toronto and Hamilton area rail corridor, as well as a new train maintenance facility and upgrades at Toronto's Union Station. The wide-reaching project also incorporates rail electrification, refurbishment and maintenance on trains, and oversight of train control and dispatch operations, among many other aspects, and introducing data as a way to help us move trains from point A to point B.
The overall approach that we are taking is strategic. It is something along the lines of what Guelph has developed, a community energy initiative. Now we are looking at the same types of principles nationally to see where the main contributors to climate change are. Industry is the largest, including oil and gas, but it is all industry, amounting to 37% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada or 269 megatonnes.
We are looking at small business retrofits across the board. In Guelph, we have Canadian Solar that is doing great work on providing solar panels across Canada. Linamar in Guelph is developing the car of the future.
We are looking at new processes within our manufacturing industry. One of the members across the way mentioned VeriForm, which is just in Cambridge, southwest of Guelph, that is looking at how to reduce the climate change impact on businesses.
We have introduced an accelerated capital cost allowance to write down costs in the first year. Instead of paying taxes, people will pay for greening their businesses to reduce the cost of operations.
We have also looked at transportation. Twenty-three percent of greenhouse gases, 171 megatonnes, are emitted through transportation. We are looking at how we can reduce those through EV incentives that we have now introduced. We are also promoting EV within our communities through a not-for-profit organization called eMERGE that has held a couple of car shows to show the community how we can transition to electric vehicles. In fact, we have had many owners displaying their cars and saying what their challenges have been and how they are overcoming challenges to show that it really is not that hard to get into an EV.
We are looking at active transportation, increasing bike lanes, and as I mentioned, increasing the number of buses in our fleet, getting new buses in our fleet, providing fare boxes at bus stops and four special transit vehicles, all of which are funded through the federal government's support.
We are looking at our built environment, the buildings and the 12% of greenhouse gas emissions, or 87 megatonnes, that are emitted through building heating and cooling. FCM now has a green fund that we have doubled so that we can put climate action incentives in place to help people save money on the operation of their building and, at the same time, reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
As well, 11% is coming from electricity. How do we provide a better way of getting electricity other than using fossil fuels? We are looking at research into cold-water aquifer development so that we can get geothermal working on our side to provide heating and cooling in urban buildings.
Forestry, agriculture and waste draw a lot of attention with 17% of greenhouse gas emissions, or 127 megatonnes. I am proud to say that Guelph and Wellington County were the recipients of a $10-million fund through the smart cities challenge to reduce food waste and promote clean technology companies that are focused on providing sustainable food and reducing food waste. We are looking at that developing and going into the future.
Beyond all of these, looking at the different areas of greenhouse gas emission opportunities, we are also looking at adaptation and climate resilience. We are looking at the floods and forest fires that are happening and how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through adaptation programs.
I was a member of the Rotary Club in Guelph. It just completed a 10-year program of planting 60,000 trees in our area. It is looking at how to sequester carbon and promote more oxygen into the atmosphere. Even though the Ontario government is cutting tree-planting programs, Guelph is looking at ways to increase its tree canopy to a 40% target within the municipality.
Flood resilience is another area. We all experience floods. Even though Guelph is not on a major river like the Ottawa River, we still get floods. The federal government has provided support for sewer upgrades and snow storage areas and flood resilience programs, all helped by federal funding.
Clean technology, innovation and jobs is where we are all heading. It is a new economy. We are looking at the opportunities that climate change provides for us to develop the technology of the future. I co-founded an organization I am so proud of, Innovation Guelph, that is working with Bioenterprise in Guelph. It received $5.6 million and is helping 135 new start-up companies to develop solutions around clean technologies.
Looking at this nationally, Sustainable Development Technology Canada is providing funding support for companies across Canada to develop these types of solutions. It has also launched joint funding opportunities in collaboration with Emissions Reduction Alberta and Alberta Innovates, which I also visited during my term here. It has partnered with the Ontario Centres of Excellence to enhance Ontario's greenhouse gas innovation initiative. SDTC estimates that its projects have reduced annual emissions by 6.3 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent, generated $1.4 billion in annual revenue and supported growth of more than 9,200 direct and indirect jobs since 2015.
We have also funded the upgrade of the community energy initiative in Guelph with $175,000, which is going into projects in Guelph to try to help us move forward into the future.
However, our work is not done. The transition to a low-carbon economy does not occur overnight. We recognize that evidence-informed policy requires ongoing support, so we established a new independent climate change and clean growth institute to provide trusted information and advice for years to come. We are going to review these findings to help us contribute to take strong action on climate change, which includes the price on carbon but does not exclude all these other things we are doing.
I am thankful for the time I had to talk about climate change as it relates to Guelph.
Mr. Speaker, Guelph is a very green community, as evidenced by its MPP Mike Schreiner, the leader of the Green Party of Ontario. The local initiatives are fantastic, as they are right across Canada.
The problem we have here is that last night we declared a climate emergency and today we are apparently going to buy a pipeline with public dollars. This goes right against the goal of achieving the Paris Agreement target, which is not the one cited by my hon. friend from Guelph. The target of 30% below 2005 by 2030 is the target tabled with the United Nations by former environment minister Leona Aglukkaq in May 2015, well before Paris was negotiated.
It is inexplicable to me that the Liberal government has held that target, but particularly, it is unconscionable since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of October 8 of last year told us clearly that we have one opportunity to preserve human civilization, the window on that opportunity will close soon and 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 is a path to catastrophe.
Recognizing it is a climate emergency, when will the government, if the hon. member for Guelph is in a position to tell us, increase Canada's target and commitment with the United Nations to be consistent with the goal of 1.5°C?
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with Mike Schreiner, who is the MPP in our area. What it shows is that all orders of government need to work together, including the municipality, on something that is not a partisan issue as we go forward. We should not be fighting each other, we should be fighting climate change.
The goals we have signed on to, through the Paris accord, are goals that will be reviewed as we go forward. However, they are goals that align with the international goals that 192 countries have all signed on to together. We have worked across Canada with provinces and territories. We know what the target is. We are going to exceed our targets by the aggressive programs we have launched and are going to be following through on, working with our provincial and municipal counterparts.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.
I feel that the Liberals are taking action at the last minute. Last night, they made us vote on a motion recognizing the climate emergency, but they have done practically nothing over the past four years when they were in power.
The vote on this motion was held on the eve of the announcement concerning the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which they bought with our money.
The Trans Mountain expansion will increase pollution and oil sands production. It will be equivalent to putting another three million cars on the road.
How can my Liberal colleague say that it makes sense to vote on a climate emergency motion one day and then authorize the increased production of the most polluting oil in the world the next day?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that was also part of the question from the hon. member for the Green Party across the way, which was how do we have sustainable development in terms of pipelines and getting oil to export markets? That is really the purpose of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 working together. How do we measure greenhouse gas emissions upstream and downstream, working with indigenous people to make sure we also have the social licence to do what we need to do?
The pipeline we are going to be talking about later this week has 200 conditions against it. This is not a matter of creating a corridor and plowing through with no environmental or social review. We are following the new review processes, which take into account climate change and our impact on the world, hopefully getting our oil to market to take off dirty coal or other emitters that are worse than what we would be providing through our resources in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand how we got here. We are at a place where the majority of the world, the vast majority of scientists, former Conservative politicians, religious leaders are saying that the path forward is through a price on pollution.
However, only two weeks ago, the deputy leader from the Conservative Party said, “The bottom line is there’s no solid connection between climate change and the major indicators of extreme weather....The continual claim of such a link is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes.“
How did we get to this point where we have a Conservative Party that is just hell-bent against the idea of climate change and doing something about it?
Mr. Speaker, the quote was actually referring to a quote from a Guelph economist, Ross McKitrick, who was looking at the connection between climate change and the economy.
It is inflamed rhetoric from the other side. We heard the member for Calgary Nose Hill. Some of the words she was using were intended to inflame the argument and divide, versus working together, working across party lines, working with provinces, territories and municipalities.
We should not be fighting each other. We should be fighting climate change.
Mr. Speaker, when I think of our environment, virtually from day one, this government has had a developing climate action plan that is healthy for the environment and the economy at the same time. We often talk about Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it and helping them through different measures. We recognize that we can do both at the same time. We can continue to develop the economy and ensure we have a healthier planet for future generations.
I want to highlight a few thoughts and then provide a little more detail on some of the politics.
When we look at the budgets and legislative measures, it is fairly impressive. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars through budgetary measures over the last few years, such as over $2.3 billion in funding to support clean technology in one form or another; $21.9 billion in green infrastructure funding, which will support things like electricity infrastructure, renewable energy and so forth; and $2 billion for disaster mitigation and adaptation funding.
From day one, this government has been on track to bring forward positive legislation and budgetary measures. This demonstrates very clearly that we understand how important the environment is not only to Canadians but to the world. These types of actions put Canada in a good place with respect to strong international leadership on this very important file. I believe Canadians want us to do this as a government.
We can look at some of the initiatives that government can take, and we hear a great deal about the price on pollution. For years now, the Conservative Party has been a lone voice in the House of Commons. The New Democrats, the Greens and, to the best of my knowledge, the Bloc understand that a price on pollution is the best way to go. It is not only the parties in the chamber, but it is very well received in many provincial and territorial jurisdictions. In fact, the majority of them already had some form of a price on pollution in place.
When we are talking about the national price on pollution, we are talking about areas where there is no plan in place, where there is no price on pollution and the federal government is imposing one. The good new is that 80%-plus of constituents I represent as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North will be better off financially as a direct result of the price on pollution. However, the Conservatives in their spin and misinformation that they funnel out of their Conservative war room virtually on a daily basis are telling Canadians something that is vastly different from reality and truth. This is not a cash grab.
The Conservatives ask about the GST on fuel at the pumps. I remind them that they put the cascading tax on the pump price. I remind the Conservatives that their Party ignored the environment to the degree that it now demands the type of attention it has been given over the last few years. We just voted last night on the emergency facing our environment. Once again, the Liberals, the Greens, the Bloc and the CCF all voted yes that we did need to take the environment far more seriously. They recognized that it as an emergency. Only the Conservative Party voted against that motion.
The Conservatives say they have a plan. They have been saying that for a long time now. For the last 400-plus days, all they have been doing is criticizing the price on pollution, even though it is widely respected and acknowledged as the best way to deal the reduction of emissions.
However, now Doug Ford has apparently met with the federal Conservative leader and hammered out a plan. Tomorrow, Mr. Ford will share his plan with the rest of Canada. He took Ontario out of the old plan,. Now he will present a national plan, worked on with the federal Conservative Party. I look forward to seeing that plan. A little more transparency on the environment is long overdue when it comes to the Conservative Party of Canada.
It would be nice to compare our plan with the Conservative plan. Our plan talks about hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in clean energy and working with the different stakeholders. I will provide some tangible examples. In the last budget, there was an incentive for individuals to buy electric vehicles. Other provinces, like the beautiful province of Quebec, had a complementary program that would give the residents of Quebec a more substantial discount. Tesla reduced the price on a vehicle in order to get under the threshold. The biggest winner in this is the consumer, followed by the environment.
Governments can make a difference. To get a better appreciation of that, look at what happened in the taxi industry in the province of Manitoba with the Prius car. It was through government action. Government actions can make a difference. We came in with a plan after working with indigenous communities, provincial governments, municipalities, school boards and the private sector in developing ways to reduce emissions in every region of our country.
Through this debate, I have learned that the Conservative Party opposes supporting private sector initiatives with public dollars. That became very clear in the last number of weeks. I am anxious to see how the Conservatives might spin on that dime as they try to convince Canadians they care about the environment. In reality, there has been no indication that is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is following the advice of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, “if you say it louder...people will totally believe it.”
He should know that over the past year and a half, every single provincial government that has pushed headlong into this consumer-directed carbon tax has been defeated at the polls. Canadians are repeatedly saying that enough is enough. They are tired of being nickel-and-dimed.
The parliamentary secretary will know that the Alberta government got rid of its carbon tax, but it does have a price on the largest emitters in the province. The member just said that basically the federal backstop is only meant to impose a carbon tax on those jurisdictions that are not pricing it. Alberta is, and we have been told by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change that, as of January 1, we will be paying two taxes, one for the largest emitters based in Alberta, which is our jurisdiction, in our province, and now this revenue-generating carbon tax that Albertans have said they do not want.
What does the parliamentary secretary have to say to that?
Let us say goodbye to the member for Edmonton Centre, too.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is very good at misleading Canadians. At the end of the day, the residents in Edmonton and the residents in Calgary, a vast majority of them, will actually be financially better off with a price on pollution, with the way the Liberal government is administering it.
Canadians would never think that if they listened to a Conservative. Canadians would think it is cash grab from Ottawa, which is absolutely crap. That is not the case. The members across the way know that, but do members think that would change the propaganda that they send out? Absolutely not.
The Conservative Party is not being honest with the people of Alberta; it is trying to give a false impression. A majority of the residents in Alberta will be financially better off with the price on pollution that would be put in by the federal government come January 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the parliamentary secretary, who said that a price on pollution improves economic competitiveness. That is what OECD researchers are saying. That is a message for my Conservative colleagues.
However, I do not agree with the Liberals, who keep repeating that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. That is not the case for Trans Mountain.
The more we increase oil sands development, the more we increase greenhouse gas emissions. Here are a few statistics. Since 2005, the oil sands have grown by 158%. Alberta is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which rose by 28.7% between 2009 and 2016.
The economy and the environment do not always go hand in hand, when it comes to the extraction of dirty oil from the oil sands.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, we would have to agree to disagree. I believe an economy can in fact be managed while respecting the environment. We have seen that over the last three and a half years.
We have seen very progressive policies developed and implemented on the environment, while at the same time we have been able to generate, by working with Canadians, over one million jobs here in Canada. The economy does matter.
When we look at LNG, which is the largest single government-private working investment in Canadian history, we see it is going to provide cleaner energy. Parties will fall where they may. I know the NDP is having a very difficult time with that issue. The current leader at one time supported it, but now we do not know exactly where the NDP will fall on that particular issue.
If we look at it and just listen, the Conservatives will say that we are not building the pipelines fast enough. If we listen to the Green Party, it would be that we should not build any pipelines. If we listen to the NDP, it would depend on the day and how threatened it is by the Greens. That would determine their policy. In terms of the Liberals, I can say that we appreciate the fact that we can do it in such a fashion that it is still good for Canada's environment and good for Canada's economy.
That is why we would argue that at times it is important for us to recognize that the economy and the environment can in fact go hand in hand, if they are administered properly. That is something we have done in the last three and a half years. Hopefully, we will get a renewed mandate a little later this year.
Mr. Speaker, I thought all along that the member for Winnipeg North just liked to debate so he could hear himself. However, I digress.
I am pleased to speak today to the Conservative Party of Canada's opposition motion on the topic of climate change and the environment. I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.
I want to say that only the Liberal government could talk about the environment for four years, break its promise to meet the Paris accord on climate change and end up taxing Canadians to cover up its incompetence, overspending and environmental management.
As I get into my presentation, for those who know me and my background, I have always strived to put forward ideas and solutions to the many issues facing my constituency and our nation. While I am not as good as giving one-liners or the pithy comments of social media that seem to attract the most attention, in my own way I have tried to reach out and build consensus to get things done.
Today, I want to apply that attitude to the larger issue of the environment, conservation and climate change. Like many members in the chamber, I represent a constituency that is geographically large. All across Westman, farms and communities dot the prairie landscape, as they have for many generations. Almost half of the people I represent live outside the city of Brandon in the 20-plus municipalities located in the riding.
These are some of the most hard-working, down to earth and determined people we will meet anywhere in this great country of ours. Living in rural Canada has its unique challenges. With those challenges also comes a way of life like none other. Our connection to the land, air and water is strong, because our livelihoods quite literally depend on it.
As someone who farmed for most of my life, I firmly believe that if we take care of the land, it will take care of us. My father raised my brother and me on those words, and I have lived by them. I want to immediately dispel any notion that farmers or rural folks who oppose the carbon tax do not care about the environment. They do care. They care about it immensely. They just have a serious issue about being forced to pay a new tax imposed on provinces that will disproportionately impact rural people.
Let us put ourselves in their boots for a moment. Many families must drive long distances to get to work. Many seniors have to drive into Brandon to go to either the doctor or the optician. Parents have to drive their kids to various towns for sports or choir practice.
Let us never forget students at Brandon University and Assiniboine Community College who still live on the farm or in their rural community and make the daily commute to the city to attend classes. These are not optional things that people can just decide not to do or do less. There are no subways or bus routes for their purposes. Trust me; if people did not have to drive in our blustery winters, they would not.
From the very beginning, I believe the government has mishandled the rollout of the carbon tax.
First and foremost, many Canadians, particularly many of the people I represent, have trepidations about the federal government's priorities at the best of times. Saying the federal government is about to impose a new tax but not to worry because people will not feel the pinch, while at the same time it will combat climate change, is not the best way to get buy-in from those who have skepticism.
Second, when we tried in vain to get the financial data out of the Minister of Finance, it was so heavily blacked out that it was meaningless.
Third, when the Province of Manitoba put forward a plan that would have reduced carbon emissions, the federal government rejected it. Officials were told that no matter how many tonnes of CO2 their plan would reduce, it had to include a $50 a tonne carbon tax.
My province tried to work in good faith with the federal government and was told to go pound sand. No wonder it has decided to launch its own court case. If that is the way federalism now works in this country, it is not hard to understand why premiers are concerned about the Liberal government's other initiatives, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.
It also troubles me that, in Canadian politics, the litmus test on one's commitment to the environment is now centred on supporting a $50 a tonne carbon tax. While that may be the case in some circles, I can assure MPs that everyday Canadians do not use this lens when talking with their family and friends. It is not that my Conservative colleagues or people who oppose the carbon tax do not care about the changing climate; it is that we do not believe the carbon tax is the best way of addressing it.
Tomorrow, our leader will outline the vision and present an alternative to what is being imposed by the current federal government. Due to the already challenging political discourse on this issue, I can only imagine the over-the-top language being drafted now in response. I want to urge the Liberals to hold off on issuing their canned response before the speech has even been given. The Liberals have been waiting ever so patiently, so I fully expect that they will be paying close attention. I want the government to recognize that there are more ways to deal with climate change than applying a tax on the fuel that families put in their minivans.
I want the Liberals to recognize that applying a carbon tax on the energy used to drive farmers' grain only adds further cost to the industry that is already facing challenging commodity prices and markets that slam shut. I want them to start listening to farmers who have ideas that can reduce and sequester carbon without applying a new tax. The agricultural industry has made great strides in environmental management that benefit society, virtually by its own innovation at its own cost. There are proven models out there that have had tangible and meaningful results.
I have always been a proponent, as examples, of implementing an alternative land use services program and the expansion of wetland restoration programs. For those who have not listened to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, I can assure them his message about eating more beef and how it is good for the environment is grounded in empirical science.
Over the years as a farm leader, an MLA and now an MP, I have dealt with many issues that impact our environment. Back home, people do not apply a litmus test to determine our commitment to an issue. We focus on bringing people together to work on solutions. Perhaps one day those values will rub off on all of us in this chamber when we must wade through our differences.
I want to give just one example from which we can learn. Manitoba has been prone to floods for as long as history has been recorded. Being at the bottom of the basin, we have had to deal with spring runoff and localized flooding that has impacted communities for generations. It was a Progressive Conservative premier, Duff Roblin, who implemented a series of public works projects that protected communities in the Assiniboine and Red River basins, and particularly impacted the flooding that would have occurred in the city of Winnipeg in 1997. Since then, there have been significant enhancements to flood protection up and down the Souris, Red and Assiniboine rivers. I want to say that this issue in Manitoba is non-partisan.
Our previous federal Conservative and provincial NDP governments both invested in projects that protected the city of Brandon and the towns of Melita, Reston, Souris, Deloraine, Elkhorn and Wawanesa. We also expanded the Red River Floodway, which was completed under budget.
It was after the most recent flood that many people in the Assiniboine River basin decided that we needed to work together. Under the leadership of Allan Preston and Wanda McFadyen, they spearheaded an initiative that brought the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and North Dakota under one organization, alongside municipalities, farmers and conservation districts. We all live within the same watershed, and we had to stop working in silos.
We know a one-size-fits-all approach to water management does not work, and that is why a one-size-fits-all approach will not work with a carbon tax. That is why it was so frustrating to see how the federal government tossed aside the climate change plan put forward by Manitoba. Without a change in attitude, more and more Canadians will look at the rigid position taken by some in the government and tune out. We also know that climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. The current approach does not reflect that reality.
I firmly believe that Canada is well positioned to provide these solutions. Tomorrow we will start outlining our alternative to the carbon tax and begin the conversation on what will replace it. I encourage my Liberal colleagues, particularly those who represent rural areas, to join me in supporting this motion. I ask them to please stand up for their constituents, repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a real environmental plan.
Before we go to questions and comments, I want to thank the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour for stopping that inadvertent sound from a device near him. It was not his, but I appreciate his efforts in that respect.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to my colleague's presentation, but there were a few parts that were missing, on which I would like his comments.
The first part is that he talked about the climate action incentive, with which I understand an average family of four in Manitoba would be receiving $339. Not only that, in rural areas, where there are those extended drives for people who live farther away from cities, there is in fact a top-up as well, so there can be some additional support for those families. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study, which found that eight out of 10 families would be receiving more through this plan than they would be spending. Could I hear some comments on that?
The other missing piece is that the price on pollution is not the entire climate action plan. There is a lot more being done. There are many investments. I am sure that the member is aware of them. Perhaps he could comment about the great work that is being done on those programs, including phasing away coal and creating jobs in the meantime.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very pertinent question. However, coming from a government that has missed its Paris target by 79 megatonnes, it is not sound management.
We also know the tax package the Liberal government has come up with has fallen very short. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear about the decrease that would be required in greenhouse gas emissions in order for Canada to meet the Paris climate target. He also said we would need a tax of about $102 a tonne to meet that target, versus the $50 a tonne the government is talking about today.
Therefore, the current government does not have a real plan for environmental management; rather, it has a tax plan, and that tax plan has failed, which I thank my colleague for pointing out. It has failed in all the provinces in which the government said people would be better off with the tax than without it. The best thing to do is leave the money in people's pockets, so they can make environmental management changes in their own operations, as the agricultural industry has done over the past 50 or 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, I also tried to rise to speak to another Manitoba member, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North.
I agree with the claim referenced by both members, that Canada is in a good position to exert world leadership. Canada has a tradition of punching above its weight. However, right now, the horrible reality is that we are the worst polluter of the G20 countries. Per capita, we pollute 22 tonnes of carbon per person, compared to Sweden at about four tonnes and Norway at about six tonnes. Those are also cold, Nordic countries. It is not a question of temperature, as was offered by other members; rather, it has to do with the ambition of a target.
Both members who recently spoke referred to the Paris target as if it were the same as the current target put in place under the previous government, of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. That is not a target that is consistent with our Paris goals. Our Paris goals require that we roughly double that effort, so we can hold to 1.5°C globally.
We have a global framework, which is the Paris Agreement. Countries around the world are doing better than we are. I wonder if the hon. member for Brandon—Souris knows whether the plan that will be revealed tomorrow by the Conservative Party leader will be framed around the wrong target or adopt a target that is consistent with the Paris Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the fact that we have the ability to be a leader in the world with respect to the management of our climate. As a Conservative member who is sitting on the Arctic climate change committee, I am very aware of the changes that are taking place in that part of the world, and in all areas. The member mentioned Sweden and Norway. From my experience in those two countries, I know that because the Gulf Stream goes right up the coast of Norway, its average temperatures in the winter are 0°C to -6°C. This winter, we hit -50°C six times in Manitoba. There is a difference in the temperatures and in the climates we have to deal with in these areas.
The whole process of the Paris accord is something the government has adopted. We voted in favour of it. The levels the present government is targeting are those the Conservative government brought forward. Certainly, at the time we brought them in, they were obtainable targets. However, the government has missed the mark by a mile, and is still adding a tax on people that is not going to benefit them.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this motion. Canadians do care about the environment. Canadians care about the environment, and they care about climate change. Constituents in my riding of Perth—Wellington care about the environment and climate change. They tell me that. Small businesses, families and the agricultural community care about the environment. After all, farmers are the original conservationists. They are closest to the ground, closest to the natural resources and closest to the natural environment that they depend on for their livelihoods and way of life, so they care about this. They care about what we as a country and we as a Parliament are doing for the environment and to combat climate change.
I also hear from my constituents about the negative impact the policies of the Liberal government are having on their families, their communities and small businesses in Perth—Wellington. They tell me on their doorsteps, write to my office and send emails, and I see it on social media. They are concerned about the rising cost of living. They are concerned about the impact and effect the carbon tax is having on the cost of taking their kids to soccer practice, driving to a part-time job, running their businesses and caring for their families. They are concerned about this. They are concerned that they are being taxed and taxed again, and seeing no tangible impact of those changes.
Today's motion is very simple. It calls on the House to express its opinion that we should repeal the carbon tax, which it has been shown will not meet the Paris targets. In fact, it will fall far short of meeting those targets. The motion calls on the House to endorse a real environment plan. I am proud to say that tomorrow Canadians will see what a real environment plan looks like.
The government fails to understand that people in my riding and Canadians across the country are not wasteful people. They care about the environment, and they care about their communities. They do not waste. They are already making changes where they can. They have made their best efforts and are continuing to make their best efforts, because they care.
I recently came across a comment by a small business owner just outside of St. Marys, Ontario. She wrote that as she listened to our Prime Minister stumble over the question regarding how his family were changing their lifestyle to help the environment, she thought of her husband, whom she called the unintentional environmentalist. He has flown on an airplane once in his life, in 1991, to attend a friend's wedding in B.C. His idea of a holiday is a day trip to a local museum or pioneer village, or a train ride to Toronto to watch a ball game. A fun Saturday night is staying home watching the game on TV. He has never used a fast-food drive-through. He does not even drink coffee.
On the rare occasion that he goes out for something to eat, he always goes into the restaurant to dine. When he goes to work, he packs a lunch in a reusable container and fills his water jug from the tap. His favourite drink, milk, is purchased from the local variety store in recyclable jugs. He shops locally, and the limited clothing in his closet comes from work, the township or sports team sources. His little Honda only leaves the driveway when there is a purpose, and he does multiple errands where possible. Christmas and birthday gifts are books, given and received, not trinkets from offshore. One can see his footprint is quite small.
That is reflective of so many Canadians, so many of my constituents and so many Canadians across the country who are making an effort. Then they see the Liberal government taxing them more, and they see a Prime Minister who, when asked the very simple question of what he personally and his family are doing, stumbled over his own words and made some incoherent comment about a “drink box-water bottle-sort of thing”. That is not good enough for Canadians. It is not good enough for Canadians who are making a real effort to reduce their carbon footprint. It is not good enough for Canadians who are struggling to get by because of the cost of having the Liberals in office.
Rural communities like mine are struggling because of these costs. They do not have the benefit of mass transit systems that our urban cousins have. Someone who works in Atwood but lives in Listowel cannot take a bus to work; someone who lives in Stratford cannot take a subway to St. Marys to visit family, and a person in Arthur cannot take a transit bus to Mount Forest for appointments. It is not possible, yet this carbon tax is putting an added burden on these Canadians.
I often hear about the cost of heating people's homes, and of course the carbon tax is increasing the cost of heating homes. Luckily, the Conservative Party has proposed to lower the cost of heating homes by removing the GST portion of the HST from home heating to help families get ahead.
The problem we see is that the Liberals are not talking about an environment plan. It is a tax plan. It is a tax plan that they claim takes with one hand and gives back with the other hand, but we see them reaching into both pockets. Their rebate plan was clearly not as advertised: We saw Canadians in Ontario being told they would receive $307 back, yet the vast majority received far less than promised.
We see the Liberals, at every opportunity they get, fearmongering. They say that anyone who is opposed to the carbon tax is somehow a climate change denier. They use strong-man arguments to try to paint hard-working Canadians and the opposition as climate change deniers. However, at the end of the day, we know that the Liberals are just using empty, symbolic gestures rather than taking real action. Real action is what Conservatives take.
Real action is what Conservatives will take once again in October when we are given the honour, hopefully, of serving this great country. It was a Conservative government, under Brian Mulroney, that introduced, signed and ratified the acid rain treaty. Contrast that with the Liberal government, which signed the Kyoto protocol and then did nothing. I am proud to be a member of the Conservative government that, during its time in office, actually saw emissions decrease.
We often talk about coal-fired power plants. In fact, it was a Conservative government in 2001 in Ontario that began the process of phasing out coal in Ontario, having a meaningful and real impact on emissions in Perth—Wellington and across Canada. In my riding, many people heat their homes with natural gas. It is fascinating that the Liberal carbon tax gives a more favourable rate to coal than it does to natural gas, which is a far cleaner use of electricity and energy. Once again, the Liberals do not care about that. They care about revenues and money, and that is exactly what the Liberal plan is: a tax plan.
Yesterday we saw the Liberals vote in favour of declaring a climate change emergency, which is a symbolic gesture but has no meaningful or tangible impact. The NDP member for New Westminster—Burnaby said, “I have to comment on what just transpired. The Liberals are slapping each other on the back because they passed a motion that is meaningless.”
That is exactly what we are seeing with the Liberals: meaningless gestures rather than taking real action. Real action is what we will see tomorrow, when the Conservatives unveil our plan.
I realize that my time is running short, but I want to make a few final comments. The carbon tax is not benefiting our environment. In fact, in 2016 Canada was 44 megatonnes over its Paris target. In 2017, that number rose to 66 megatonnes. Last year, it was 103 megatonnes above the Paris commitment.
Then we find out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the only way the Liberals will even come close to hitting their Paris targets is if they increase by five times the cost of the carbon tax, from $20 today to $102. That means people in ridings across Ontario and Canada could be paying as much as 23¢ per litre of gasoline more into the coffers of the Liberal government.
Under the Conservative plan, we will have the best chance of meeting our Paris targets. Under the Conservative plan, we will have a meaningful commitment to the environment, a meaningful plan to combat climate change and a meaningful plan that will benefit all Canadians, rather than the tax plan that we see from the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, I would specifically like to talk about the national price on pollution. It was implemented on April 1. I am glad that the Conservative Party gave it a full 78 days so that they could gather the evidence they need to tell us whether it was successful or not.
I would refer the member to British Columbia, where this was first implemented 11 years ago. If we look at the data there, of course, we had reductions in per capita emissions, and at the same time, we had the fastest-growing economy in the country.
The member talked in his speech about emissions going down during the Conservatives' time. The only time that happened was during recessions, a climate plan so nice that the Conservatives did it twice the last time they were in government. That is not a way to actually protect the environment. Maybe the member is going to point to Doug Ford's plan in Ontario, one that is twice as expensive and is not getting the job done.
This is why the Conservatives voted against the climate change emergency. The Conservatives' number one promise is to repeal the national price on carbon. They are looking at the people of British Columbia, people who have done this for 11 years, and are saying, “Guess what, you have been doing it for 11 years, and finally the rest of the country came onside on April 1, but we are going to take that away. You guys in B.C. keep paying, but we are not paying anymore.” How does the member think that is fair?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, yesterday the Liberals voted in favour of a motion declaring a climate emergency, but the real emergency is a political emergency. The Liberals saw their votes seeping to other parties. They saw a Green seepage and an NDP seepage, so they used a political emergency to have a debate. The Liberals introduced that motion and let it sit for nearly a month.
Let us talk about British Columbia. The member says that there was a per capita emissions reduction, but what we see is that emissions have steadily risen in jurisdictions where there was a carbon tax. It did not reduce emissions.
Today we hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that for Canada to even come close to meeting its Paris targets, it has to increase fivefold from what it is today.
Let us talk about the provinces. We have provinces across Canada where the federal government has said that Ottawa knows best. The provincial plans are not good enough, in its opinion. Even if they reduce emissions, it is not good enough in the Liberal government's opinion. The government will only accept a tax.
Mr. Speaker, first, my concern today is that what we have heard from Conservatives is an attack on every jurisdiction that has had success implementing a carbon tax.
Conservatives say that British Columbia is too warm. That is what I heard from my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. This member talked about Scandinavia and that it is too cold there and it would be too hard for us to model ourselves on that. However, 83% of Canadians are in urban areas. The difference between Stockholm and Toronto, in median temperature, is one degree Celsius.
Canadians need bold and courageous action and to actually be committed to a clear plan with clear targets. The Conservatives are debating this motion the day before they put their plan on the table. One would think they would put their plan on the table the day before and then have this debate today. Instead, the Conservatives decided not to do that, because they do not want to talk about it. They do not want to have a real conversation so that we can talk about how we are going to move forward.
The Conservatives talk about being fiscally responsible. They know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that it is going to cost $40 billion to $50 billion for climate emergencies by 2050. Does the member think it is right that we put these economic deficits on future generations to shoulder, or does the member think we should pay a price on pollution right now? That would be the fiscally responsible thing to do for future generations right now.
Mr. Speaker, the right thing is to take real action in support of the environment, rather than introducing more taxes on Canadians who are already struggling to get by.
The member talked about urban centres. Let us talk about rural communities, which I am proud to represent. Our rural communities are going to be the hardest hit by the carbon tax, and they are going to see the least amount of benefit from the carbon tax. What is going to happen is that businesses are going to be impacted, families are going to be impacted, and we are not going to see the benefit for the environment.
The member mentioned that tomorrow we will be unveiling our Conservative plan for the environment. It is going to acknowledge and recognize that this is a global challenge and that it is going to take global action to address the concerns of climate change here in Canada and around the world. We need to take action in Canada, but we also need to be a leader in the world when it comes to this. That is why I am proud of our plan. I will be proud to see it unveiled tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
I would like to pick up on a point the member for Perth—Wellington discussed in his speech a few moments ago. He talked about his constituent, the unintentional environmentalist, who had only taken one flight and is continuing to do a number of things that are environmentally friendly to protect our world.
The irony is that the member did not bother to tell his constituent the full story. The fact is that although there is a price on pollution, there is also the climate action incentive rebate. The fact is that because the member's constituent lives in a rural riding, he will even get a top-up to the normal rebate. As a result of being so environmentally conscious, the member's constituent is going to be further ahead than the vast majority of Canadians. Of course, the member did not bother to inform his constituent of that very important information.
The Conservatives will stand here and accuse this side of the House of playing politics. This is fascinating to me, because over the last three and a half years, I have listened to Conservatives talk about CO2 being plant food. I have heard Conservatives talk about how we are demonizing CO2. I have never heard them reference anything about climate change, yet suddenly, within the last month, we have started to hear Conservatives utter the words “climate change.”
I would love to ask the Library of Parliament to do a summary of the number of times the Conservatives said “climate change” during the last month versus the preceding three and a half years. I bet they have said it more in the last month. Do members know why? It is because they have started to do the polling, and they are starting to think they might have had it wrong on this one and had better start talking about climate change now.
What are they relying on? I will tell the House what they are doing. Tomorrow they will make their big announcement. They know that they have to thread the needle very tightly, because they also know that they represent Canadians who do not believe in climate change. They need to be careful. They need to make sure that they bring forward a plan that does not offend those people either.
What we are going to hear tomorrow is a whole bunch of rhetoric from the Conservatives about how we have to do more for our environment and that the Liberal plan is a horrible plan and at the same time, we are hoping that they bring forward something that is meaningful that we can have a real and honest debate about.
At the same time as they are starting to change this messaging, someone forgot to tell the member for Milton, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. In a tweet, she said:
Bottom line is there's no solid connection between climate change and the major indicators of extreme weather. The continual claim of such a link is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes.
She must have received the message right after she tweeted that out, because it did not take long for them to pull that message off the Internet, because it did not fit the new narrative the Conservatives have suddenly adopted.
Tomorrow we will see this “plan” that will somehow try to appease those who do not believe in climate change, because that is their base. We will also see them try to put it just enough over the fence so they can pull in some of those people who do not quite know where they stand. How am I doing? How is that for the war room? I am pretty sure that is bang on with how the Conservatives are trying to play this one out.
Of course, they will scare people by claiming that this is a tax and will not tell them the full story, which is that there is a rebate back-ended on this. All the money that is collected through the price on pollution goes right back into the pockets of Canadians. The Conservatives do not want to tell Canadians that part.
This is not a tax. This is a market incentive tool, a tool used to change market behaviour. That came out in the conversation and the questions I had earlier with the member for Calgary Nose Hill when she proceeded to educate us on economic models and price elasticity. She said that fuel is an inelastic demand, and therefore, it is impossible to change the price elasticity of it or to change demand for it. The reality of the situation is that after time, the price elasticity will change as new options come into the marketplace.
That is why, while putting a price on pollution, this government has also been doing a number of things to help change that price elasticity, such as putting in a rebate for electric vehicles, investing in green technology to change the way business looks at things and making large emitters pay more.
Did members know that globally, money is gushing into any kind of fund that has a green infrastructure or green asset attached to it? There is $31 trillion currently available in anything that is labelled green, because even the marketplace knows this. Even economists know this. We are seeing world-renowned, Nobel Prize-winning economists saying that this is the solution. We are seeing religious leaders saying that this is the solution. Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper said, in 2008, that a price on pollution is the way to go. It is what is going to make changes and make us make different choices in the marketplace. Preston Manning, another famous Conservative, said the same thing.
The bottom line is that while we continue to listen to the rhetoric from the other side of the House, we know that having a plan that incentivizes our market to make people make different choices is the right way to go. It is a fundamental principle of any economic model. The Conservative Party of Canada, which says that it is the saviour and the only party that understands how the economy works, is somehow the only party in this House that is fighting against putting a price on pollution. Every single other party in this House recognizes and knows that putting a price on pollution is the way to go.
I stand by this decision. I stand by this policy. I know it is the only way to go. I know it is the right way to go. I know that Canada and the world will be better off when we listen to these renowned individuals, as opposed to the Conservative Party of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge today that Bombardier Patrick Labrie of the 2nd Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, was killed in an operation in Bulgaria. As a veteran, as the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, and as a Canadian, my thoughts and prayers are with Bombardier Patrick Labrie's family, his regimental family and his Canadian Armed Forces family.
I would ask my colleague across the way, if he could comment on how much per litre he thinks the market is willing to bear. How much can Canadians afford in terms of the carbon tax increase on the price at the pump?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his question and for recognizing the hurt that is inflicted upon our military community today. Being from a riding that has a military community in it, I know that these are events that impact the entire community and not just individual family members. Our hearts go out to them.
I believe that the scheduled price on pollution that has been implemented by this government is the correct way to go forward. We do not want to create a scenario where people are bombarded with a price on pollution all at once. It has to be ramped up over time. It has to be done in a way that can effectively get towards the targets we need to get to. I believe that the schedule that has been put in place is the right one.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on a very passionate speech, much of which I agreed with.
I will repeat again that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has come out with some stark numbers that ought to terrify every legislator in the world. If we do not hit a 45% reduction over 2010 by 2030, we risk elevating our global temperature by more than 2° above pre-industrial times, which will melt both polar caps. We can lose 99% of the world's coral reefs and face the extinction of one million species. What I am concerned about is that while we, and I in particular, support the idea of a carbon tax, we have to obtain significant reductions quickly. We have 11 years.
First, given that his government has capped the carbon tax at $50, does he think that is enough to start influencing the market to bring down our emissions quickly enough?
Second, I find it ironic that we have this passionate speech on a day that his government is going to approve, in all likelihood, the Trans Mountain pipeline. Can he tell me of a single economist or climate change leader who says that tripling bitumen exports out of Canada will have a positive effect on climate change in this world?
Mr. Speaker, the member and I probably are closer on this matter than we would both think. In fact, I voted for the motion his party put forward a year ago that defined climate change. When he talks about the amount, if we just talk about the price on pollution, we will lose sight of some of the other things that have to happen at the same time, such as investing in new technologies and moving toward encouraging people to drive electric vehicles. It is a holistic approach.
I do not think having just a price on pollution is the only way. We have to move forward in a way that advances a number of different factors and variables that contribute to the equation.
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about how he did not want to call it a tax. However, what we do know is the government put a GST on the carbon tax.
In 2017, 43.6 billion litres of gasoline were used in Canada and $2.6 billion were collected in GST. The Liberals said that they would give 100% of this money back. Surprisingly, the GST money will not be given back. We found after the fact that actually only 90% would go be given back. Therefore, any way we look at it, this is a tax.
Mr. Speaker, that is such a red herring. The member is talking about an incredible fraction of the percentage on this. The reality is that we are dealing with a party that will not even say it believes in climate change, or at least it would not until a couple of weeks ago. This continual narrative will not help advance the objective of genuinely having a meaningful impact on our environment.
We have stated, and it has been proven by the fact that all the money is being rebated, that this is an incentive tool to incentivize the marketplace so people will make better and different decisions than they currently make when it comes the use of fossil fuels.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has about eight minutes until we begin statements by members. I will let her know when her time is up.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.
[English]
It was very interesting.
[Translation]
I would like to talk about Canada's “Changing Climate Report”.
Science is the foundation of the Government of Canada’s action on climate change, and our scientists provide the information we need to make strategic decisions.
Canada's “Changing Climate Report”, which was drafted by world-renowned scientists from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Natural Resources Canada and by Canadian university experts, is one of the scientific contributions that provide the evidence we need to make sound policy decisions and to protect our environment, our communities and our economy.
The report was released in 2014 and is the first comprehensive, autonomous assessment of why and how Canada's climate is evolving and of how it is projected to change in the future. Some of Canada's best scientists conducted this peer-reviewed assessment, which was based on already published research. The report represents the work carried out by the international climatologist community. It will help inform decisions regarding adaptation and will help the public gain a better understanding of Canada's evolution.
We rely on scientists to give us the evidence. During the 10 years under the Harper government, scientists were muzzled.
We, on the other hand, prefer to rely on evidence and scientific consensus when making decisions. The science is clear: Canada's climate is warming more rapidly than the global average.
This will continue, and global carbon dioxide emissions from human activity will largely determine how much more warming Canada and the world will experience in the future.
Reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide will reduce how much additional future warming occurs. However, no matter how much warming occurs, this warming is here to stay. It is effectively irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia.
Canada’s “Changing Climate Report” is a comprehensive scientific assessment that will inform the development of sound policies designed to protect the environment, our communities and the economy.
The people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, located along the Mille-Îles River in the Montreal area, believe in having sound evidence. Unfortunately, we have had 100-year floods in 2017 and in 2019. There can be no doubt that climate change is real, and my constituents take their environment to heart.
The report will also help raise public awareness and understanding of the changing climate and enable strong adaptation to reduce our vulnerability and strengthen our resilience to climate change. It tells us strong mitigation action is required to limit warming.
In the development of the report, key stakeholders were engaged to ensure this information is presented to serve a broad range of public and private sector adaptation decision-makers.
This key reference document is relevant across many sectors and informs Canadian planning and investment decisions that will last decades.
When the time comes for the provinces and territories to prepare development plans, they need data to show where the flood plains are, whether climate change will affect those areas and what is going to happen.
The assessment confirms that Canada's climate has warmed mainly in response to emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity. The effects of widespread warming are already evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the next five years. The report covers changes across Canada in temperature and precipitation, including extremes, snow, ice and permafrost, freshwater availability and changes in oceans surrounding Canada.
The report provides a riveting account of climate change in Canada. Canada’s climate has warmed and will warm further in the future as a result of human influence, and this phenomenon is irreversible. In Canada, the rate of past and future warming is, on average, about double the global average. The climate in Canada is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. The annual mean temperature in Canada increased by 1.7ºC over the past 70 years. The temperature in winter increased by 3.3ºC over the same period. The increase in annual mean temperature is even more marked in the Canadian Arctic, where it rose by 2.3ºC. To sum up, Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and the Arctic is warming three times as fast. It is quite worrisome. We must do something about this.
Canada's oceans have warmed and the acidification process has begun. They are now less oxygenated, which is consistent with the trend observed around the world over the past century.
The effects of widespread warming are evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the future. These effects such as thawing permafrost, shorter snow and ice cover seasons, longer growing seasons, more extreme heat and earlier spring peak stream flow will continue because some further warming is unavoidable. Precipitation is projected to increase for most of Canada, although summer rainfall may decrease in some areas. Changing temperatures and precipitation, and also changes in snow and ice, have important implications for freshwater supply. The seasonal availability of freshwater is changing with an increased risk of water supply shortages in summer.
A warmer climate will intensify weather extremes in the future. Extreme hot temperatures will become more frequent and more intense. This will increase the severity of heat waves. That is why a report written by scientists is so important to both private enterprise and the public sector. It will help us make the right decisions in order to take climate action.
Since I am out of time, I will continue to explain why this report is so important after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Statements by Members]
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, according to the Canada Revenue Agency, tax evasion costs us $26 billion and banks and oil companies reap the rewards.
That is $26 billion that is not being taxed and used to pay for our nurses or to renovate our schools and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Canada Revenue Agency calculates how much money people are hiding, but not how much money people keep in tax havens with the CRA's permission. Corporations and banks are allowed to engage in tax avoidance. That is what the Liberals are hiding when they talk about tax fairness.
The CRA will put a citizen who owes $100 through hell to get that money, but Ottawa allows banks to hide billions of dollars in Barbados.
The Liberals even legalized three new tax havens during their term. They say that the net is tightening on tax cheats, but it is more like a window that is opening.
[English]
Sudan
Mr. Speaker, last week, members of Niagara's Sudanese community marched to St. Catharines city hall to honour those killed in Sudan during increased violence and protests in the country. Many residents still have friends, family and loved ones in the midst of a brutal crackdown on political protesters bravely calling for change following decades of oppression from their government. They want what we have: a civilian-led government and a voice in their own future. They seek the basic human rights we all take for granted. The response from their government has been horrific violence, including killings and sexual assault. All of this was for doing what we are doing right now: making our voices heard.
My thoughts are with their loved ones and the people of Sudan. The perpetrators must be held to account for these atrocities. The Government of Canada stands with the people of Sudan. We are prepared to do whatever we can to support a civilian-led transition to a democratically elected government in Sudan.
We hear the Niagara Sudanese community, we stand with it and we stand with the people of Sudan.
Alberta
Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Prime Minister forgot to mention Alberta in his Canada 150 speech. We were of course offended but did not think it was more than an innocent omission. However, the Prime Minister's actions have lived up to this omission, as it appears he wishes he could forget Alberta altogether.
His policies, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, are deliberate attempts to destroy our energy sector. Bill C-69 would impose onerous new regulations around pipeline construction. Bill C-48 would ban tankers from parts of B.C.'s coast. As a result of these bills, thousands of hard-working Canadians will continue to lose jobs in our province. The government also wants to impose a new carbon tax on Alberta on January 1. Talk about kicking us while we are down.
Approving the Trans Mountain expansion project is not enough. The Liberals must put forward a concrete plan to get the project built and tell Canadians when construction will start in Burnaby.
A Conservative government will stand up for Alberta, as a strong Alberta is a strong Canada.
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect on our accomplishments of the last four years: the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years, one million jobs created by Canadians and 300,000 kids lifted out of poverty.
I am proud of my work on the status of women committee to help shape a national gender-based violence strategy and my work on the public safety committee on legislation that will transform our national security landscape, eliminate administrative segregation from prisons and introduce a common-sense approach to firearms.
My office's young women in leadership program has connected over 150 young women with career mentors. Our government supported the Terry Fox Research Institute with a $150-million commitment toward cancer research. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I note we are moving forward on pharmacare and healthy active living.
I am immensely privileged to represent Oakville North—Burlington. Here is to another four years of good work on behalf of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Mr. Speaker,
I first came to this world in a town called La Reine.
It captures my heart, again and again.
At the edge of the world, where the air is so clear,
The Abitibiwinni have lived for thousands of years.
To the sound of their drums is how my heart beats,
To the rhythm of their oars, the cadence repeats.
Bright, starry nights envelop, surround me,
I am Témis. I am Abitibi.
I was born in the autumn with colours ablaze,
But each season brings some beauty to praise.
An idyllic place to learn and to grow,
Where the Okiko River steady does flow.
A place of peace, rest and tranquillity,
I am Témis. I am Abitibi.
In this part of the land, mother earth gives her wealth,
And my little treasures were born in good health.
With all that they need to grow and to flourish,
They are raised in love, they are cherished and nourished.
Precious new life in need of nurture and caring,
We are mothers both, into eternity staring.
Here fertile soil helps to feed,
Nurturing every little seed.
Ancient forests embrace, enclose
All those in need of some repose.
My feet have travelled your breadth and length.
In you my heart has found its strength.
I am Témis. I am Abitibi.
I am Témis. I am Abitibi.
[English]
Veterans
Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 75th anniversary of D-Day and we share a sacred responsibility to keep veterans' stories alive. It is with that in mind that I wish to highlight the contribution of Jewish Canadian war veterans who have served in all of Canada's wars.
In World War II, for example, Canadian Jews served in Canada's armed forces at a rate 10% higher than the national average. One such individual was Nathan Dlusy. Nathan fled Germany in 1938 to come to Montreal. In 1942, despite not yet having his citizenship, Nathan enlisted with the Royal Canadian Air Force to fight against tyranny and oppression overseas. In 1944, he gave his life for our country. He was only 23 years old. Today, his brother John Dlusy has kept his story alive.
I wish to thank John for sharing his brother's courageous story and I want to thank all of our veterans who have served and sacrificed so that we may live in freedom.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Liberals defended funding anti-oil and gas groups because of “free speech” while they shut down church-run summer camps because of their “values” test. The Liberals showed their values this year, once again using taxpayer dollars to fund groups that want to block the Trans Mountain expansion and shut down Canadian oil and gas.
The list includes Tides Canada running a decade-long, foreign-funded smear campaign against the oil sands; the Pembina Institute working with American groups to “landlock” Canadian oil; the Dogwood Initiative campaigning against politicians who support Canadian oil and gas, specifically against the Trans Mountain expansion; the Sierra Club running a campaign right now against the Senate amendments to Bill C-69 that indigenous communities and nine provinces and all territories want; and the West Coast Environmental Law Association that took foreign money to push the oil shipping ban in 2015 that led to Bill C-48 and has already promised new legal challenges to the Trans Mountain expansion.
MPs review and approve the funding. It is all in Liberal and NDP ridings. When it comes to Liberals' claims to support oil and gas workers, the Prime Minister is not as advertised.
West Island Cancer Wellness Centre
Mr. Speaker, the West Island Cancer Wellness Centre, under the leadership of its founder Debbie Magwood and with the unflagging support of its dedicated staff, volunteers and donors, is the model for a new kind of cancer care. The centre is a pioneer in a whole-person integrated approach that goes beyond traditional medical treatment to focus on the psychosocial needs of those living with the disease.
[Translation]
The centre supports participants through a variety of programs including fitness, meditation, reflexology and yoga.
[English]
Debbie and her team are passionate about sharing their vision. That is why, with the support of Health Canada, they have launched National Cancer Wellness Awareness Day, to be marked for the first time this June 26.
[Translation]
I would like to congratulate Debbie and her team and the incredible community that supports the centre and its mission to make Canada an even more compassionate society.
[English]
Long Range Mountains
Mr. Speaker, it has been my honour to represent my riding of Long Range Mountains in this 42nd Parliament. Our government has accomplished a great deal, however, I know that, working together, there is much more we will deliver in our next mandate.
With summer coming, I must take this opportunity to talk about the tourism industry. It is growing leaps and bounds and there is an economic boost especially in rural areas. The invitation is extended to all my colleagues, if they are looking for something to do this summer, to visit my riding. We have stunning campgrounds, cozy B and Bs, unique inns and hotels. Surrounded by majestic scenery, people can enjoy hiking, boat tours, icebergs and whales, kayaking, fishing, hunting, challenging golf, incredible theatre, museums, delicious culinary experiences and so many local shops to explore.
From our national parks and historic sites, people will see some incredible sunsets and if they are lucky, the northern lights. Visitors will always find the locals just waiting to share their stories in our unique lingo. I can promise that there is music everywhere.
I will be travelling about my riding all summer and I hope to see everyone there.
Canada–U.S. Relations
Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious the Prime Minister is not taken seriously on the world stage. While the Liberals try to justify his disastrous foreign diplomacy, the Prime Minister inevitably makes another misstep that further erodes Canada's reputation. The result is that Canada has never been more alone.
Canada's economy and prosperity depend on trade and trade is all about relationships. Failed diplomacy is failed trade. That is why this meeting with the U.S. President this week is important. It is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to repair a strained relationship and advance Canada's interests.
Canadians imprisoned in China, softwood lumber, a guarantee of no new U.S. national security tariffs, improved defence and security, and Canada's Arctic sovereignty must all be addressed. Canada and the United States must resolve our differences and unite to face the common threats to our freedom and democracy.
Canada needs a Prime Minister who will rise to the challenge in Washington. There is much at stake.
Member for Brampton North
Mr. Speaker, this is my last member's statement in this 42nd Parliament. I would like to take a moment to reflect on what a wonderful journey it has been. I want to take a moment to congratulate all members in this House and thank them for their friendship, their guidance and lessons learned.
However, none of this would be possible without the support of some very important people back home. I would like to thank my husband, Tejinder Sahota, and our son, Nihal. I would like to thank my parents, Harbans Singh, Surinder Kaur, Kuldip Sahota and Pam Sahota, and my siblings, Simmi, Raj, Shub and Mandeep. Of course, I cannot forget my assistant, Karen Gill, who has become one of my most trusted friends. We have taken this journey together and boy, has it been sweet.
Lastly, I want to thank the good people of Brampton North. They have encouraged me and challenged me every step of the way. Over these last few years, I have tried my best to serve them with passion and integrity. I thank them for the opportunity of a lifetime, I have nothing but love and gratitude for them.
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, every day, Canada's middle class has been priority number one. Whether it is the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister or the entire Liberal caucus, we recognize the value of having a middle-class tax break that gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadians in every region of our country.
We recognize the value of decreasing the small business tax. We recognize the value of increasing taxes for Canada's 1% wealthiest. We realize the value in terms of increasing the Canada child benefit for Canadians, with $9 million a month going into Winnipeg North alone. We recognize the value of supporting our seniors, lifting hundreds of seniors out of poverty in Winnipeg North alone and seniors across our country. We realize the value of investing in Canada's infrastructure.
We know, understand and appreciate that the way to make our economy work is to invest in Canada.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister enjoys the life of being in the world's top 1%, and the use of taxpayer-funded carbon-spewing government jets, most Canadians have to budget to get by. It is no wonder there is a disconnect between the current Prime Minister's policies and the impacts they will have on middle-class Canadians.
A carbon tax raises the price of everything. Food, flights, gas and all household items are more expensive because of it. This week we learned that the Liberal carbon tax will fail in its alleged purpose of helping Canada reach its Paris Agreement targets. This is further evidence that the Liberal carbon tax is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. Canadians cannot afford this tax.
When something does not work, we replace it with something else that does. On October 21, Canadians will have the opportunity to exchange the current defective Liberal government for a Conservative government that will work for them.
Member for West Nova
Mr. Speaker, it is the honour of a lifetime to be a member of Parliament. Since I will not be running again in the next election, this will be my last time addressing the House.
I have so many people to thank for allowing me this incredible opportunity to serve Canada. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my amazing team here on the Hill, and back at home. I thank Melanie, Sjanna, Norma and Jason for a job very well done.
I thank the many Liberal Party volunteers and supporters in West Nova. I cannot begin to tell them how much their dedication has meant to me.
As we all know, none of us could do this job without the support of our family and friends, and to mine I say that I love them, I look forward to seeing them more often, and I hope the feeling is mutual.
Last but not least, I thank the kind and decent people of western Nova Scotia. I hope the contribution I have made on their behalf is worthy of them. It is a privilege to be their representative, one that I will treasure for the rest of my life.
Canada is good and just. As we continue on our journey, let us always have the wisdom to strive for an even better country.
Oil Tanker Moratorium
Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, I first rose in this place to pay tribute to an environmental and peace activist named Alice Coppard, who had just passed away. In 1971, she hitchhiked across Canada, gathering signatures for a north coast oil moratorium. One year later in this place, in 1972, Frank Howard, the MP for Skeena, passed a unanimous motion to the same effect.
For those of us watching the devastating impacts of climate change in our communities and watching governments unwilling or unable to act, it is tempting to lose faith. However, hope springs eternal, for after almost 50 years of a campaign to unite indigenous and non-indigenous, environmentalists and conservationists, rural and urban, tonight we will vote to finally pass the north coast oil tanker moratorium into law.
In my final statement to Parliament, I thank all those who fought and campaigned to protect the northwest and who believe firmly in their hearts and minds that it is never too late to build a better world.
Government Policies
Mr. Speaker, let us look back to 2015 and some of the promises that were made by the Prime Minister.
There would be modest deficits and the budget would balance itself in 2019. That was false. The deficit is at $22 billion this year and mounting. Then there was the reinstatement of life-long pensions for veterans. That was false again. We have seen multiple ethics scandals, a disastrous India trip, the payment to Omar Khadr, the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Mark Norman affair, and threats to our security and sovereignty. The 2015 election was going to be the last election under first past the post.
Shall I dispense? Members obviously agree.
The Prime Minister said that Canada was back, but Canada was not back. The Liberals were back to their scandal-plagued days of backroom deals and backroom operatives, looking after their well-connected and well-heeled friends and working on two sets of rules: one for the Liberals and one for the rest of us.
The number of first-time Liberal MPs not reoffering this October is the most since 1997. For all the reasons I have stated, and much more, these members have come to realize, like many who voted for them in 2015, that the current Prime Minister is not as advertised.
Government Policies
Mr. Speaker, our government believes that investing in Canadians is not only the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. Over one million jobs have been created since we came to government. Unemployment rates are the lowest on record. Over 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty through measures like our increase to the guaranteed income supplement, sending $1.7 million per year to low-income single seniors in my riding.
Low- and middle-income families, like Lacy's in Tweed and Krysta-Lee's in Tamworth, are benefiting from the Canada child benefit, which in April alone helped over 16,000 children in my riding, for a total of $5.5 million. That is $66 million per year for families in Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
We ran on a plan to invest, and the result is the best balance sheet and one of the highest growth rates in the G7. Not only is our plan working; it is better than advertised.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are going to approve the TMX pipeline project today. This is not a big surprise. However, what is very unclear is whether or not this pipeline will ever get built.
I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister. When will construction of the TMX pipeline commence in Burnaby this summer?
Mr. Speaker, we have been steadfast in our commitment to getting this right by following the Federal Court of Appeal's guidance. Over the last number of months, the Minister of Natural Resources has met with communities from all four regions of the proposed project, and our Crown consultation teams have been on the ground engaging in meaningful two-way dialogue. We have committed to delivering this process in the right way for all Canadians, and we will have more to say shortly.
Mr. Speaker, there is no comfort there. I spent this weekend in Milton talking to people on Main Street. I spent the last two days in Toronto talking to senior bankers and business people. The one thing they all have in common is that not a single one of them believes that the Prime Minister will get this pipeline built, and we will not believe it until we see shovels in the ground.
I ask again, what day will this pipeline commence construction in Burnaby, British Columbia?
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the previous government cut corners with its blatant disregard for the courts, no plans to protect the environment and coastal communities, and failure to respect the rights of indigenous communities. In the process, all the Conservatives managed to do was divide Canadians. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. We committed to getting this process right for all Canadians, and we will have more to say shortly.
Mr. Speaker, one would think that a government that is seeking to be re-elected by the Canadian public would actually care about the fact that nobody believes it will build this pipeline. The Liberals can dredge up past stories of their own narratives, but the reality is that they have to live with their actions now. Nobody believes they will build the pipeline.
However, here is the thing. They can tell us now exactly when they are going to commence construction. When will they commence construction in Burnaby this summer?
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives continue to double down on their failed approach, with their disregard for the courts, with no plan to protect the environment, no plan to protect the coastal communities and no respect for consultation with indigenous communities. The only thing they ever achieved in their decade was to divide Canadians. They even voted to de-fund the TMX reconsideration process. We committed to getting this done right, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Order, please. I remind the hon. member for Abbotsford and others to wait until it is their turn to speak before doing so.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have some nerve talking about lack of respect. The Liberal Party and the Liberal leader have little respect for Canadian energy and none at all for oil industry workers.
The Prime Minister has no respect for people who work on pipelines. He wants to eliminate oil and he wants it to be expensive, as well. That is what the Liberals want. We know that the government will be giving the Trans Mountain expansion the green light a few hours from now.
The question is, when will the shovels actually be in the ground?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the party opposite would talk about respect for workers. For over a decade, it had a process that resulted in no pipeline getting built. In fact, we respect workers. We have respected workers through the legislation we introduced to strengthen workers' rights in this country, to protect workers' rights and to create good jobs. In fact, we have supported the creation of over a million jobs in this country since we were elected. That is standing up for workers. This government will always stand up for workers, always stand up for jobs, and that is exactly what we are doing today.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the member to be patient: four months and it will be done.
[Translation]
As everyone knows, the government has not done a single thing since announcing Trans Mountain. Not one spadeful of soil has been turned, not one inch of pipeline has been built. The government has not built a thing, but it has taken a 2,500 kilometre detour by sending Canadians' money to Houston, which is 2,500 kilometres away from here. That is the only thing the Liberals have done.
In a couple of hours, they will announce that Trans Mountain is going ahead. When will shovels be in the ground?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives had a decade to create things like pipelines and it did not result in any action. Why? Because they blatantly disregarded the courts. They blatantly disregarded the rights of Canadians. They blatantly disregarded the rights of communities to have input, to have consultation on these projects that affected all of us.
We continue to support the process of consultation. The minister has held numerous consultations with indigenous communities and with coastal communities. We continue to listen. We will have more to say shortly.
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister presents a symbolic motion on the environment one day and approves a pipeline expansion the next. This pipeline will only make climate change worse. This decision shows that the Liberals are not taking the emergency seriously and do not respect the rights of indigenous peoples.
What will the Prime Minister say to the young people who want to defend the environment and have sustainable employment in the future?
Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to stand and say how hard we are working to protect the environment and tackle climate change.
Yes, yesterday, we had a vote on the climate emergency motion. The Conservatives voted against it. I am pleased that the NDP voted for it, but why are they not in favour of the project supported by B.C. NDP? I am speaking of the LNG project, which creates thousands of jobs and is growing our economy. We are—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing soaring temperatures, forest fires and flooding. Canada should be a leader on climate innovation. Canada should be ending our subsidies to fossil fuels. Instead, the Liberals are purchasing pipelines. They are continuing to maintain Harper's targets. They are continuing to subsidize fossil fuel sectors.
We believe there is a better way. The Liberals believe there is better symbolism. When will the Prime Minister finally respect indigenous communities, coastal communities and defend our environment?
Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in symbolism; we believe in action.
That is why we have phased out coal and we are ensuring a just transition for communities. That is why we are making historic investments in public transportation, so people can get around faster, greener, cheaper. That is why we are investing in innovation and companies across the country that are providing the solutions we need and the world desperately needs. That is why we brought in Bill C-69, better rules to protect the environment.
Unfortunately, we have a Conservative Party that does not believe that we need to protect the environment, that we need to—
Housing
Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of symbolism, the Prime Minister is great at grand symbolic gestures, but always fails when it comes to helping people when it counts.
Millions of Canadians do not have an affordable place to live and they make difficult choices every day, between buying their groceries or paying their rent. Now the PBO confirms what Canadians have known all along, that instead of increasing the amount of funding for housing, the Liberal government has cut it by one-fifth.
When will the Prime Minister stop making excuses and actually build, which is our plan, half a million new affordable homes for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, our government proudly introduced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy. We recognize that every Canadian deserves a safe, affordable place to call home.
The new report on housing from the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights that without the national housing strategy, housing investments in the country would have been cut by more than 75% over this next decade. We are maintaining the momentum and the growth to ensure Canadians have the housing they need, deserve and can afford.
Mr. Speaker, it contains nothing. The PBO points out that the Liberal government is cutting funding to housing. Do not make up stuff.
[Translation]
The Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports are clear—
[English]
I would remind the hon. member for Burnaby South to direct his comments to the Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the PBO's reports are clear and prove what we have been saying for months: the Liberals are not creating the housing that people need. This Prime Minister is very good at making symbolic gestures, but he is not there for the people when it counts. Canada is in the midst of a housing crisis that affects all regions of the country.
When will the Liberals get serious and help people secure the affordable housing they need?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, thanks to our unprecedented investments in housing since taking office in 2015, we have helped more than a million Canadians find a place to call home. The national housing strategy ensures that we will continue to be a full and active partner in Canada's housing sector for the decade to come.
I have had the honour in my constituency to help dig the foundations and open the new buildings that new citizens in my riding are able to enjoy.
[Translation]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer sent a clear message last week.
The Liberal government's carbon tax will cost Canadians even more. The Prime Minister does not want to tell us that, in addition to being twice as high as was originally announced, the carbon tax will go up. The Prime Minister will raise the price of gas by 23¢ per litre.
I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. Why does he want to raise the price of gas by another 23¢? That will have an impact on people's grocery bills, heating costs and everything they consume.
[English]
If the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the hon. member for Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development wish to have a conversation, they might want to do that outside.
The hon. Minister of Environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as the opposition party knows, we put a price on pollution because pollution can no longer be free. We are giving that money back to families. Eighty per cent of families, low-income and middle-class families, will have more money in their pockets.
Maybe the member noticed that the pope met with oil companies last week. They agreed that we need to put a price on pollution.
Whey do we need to put a price on pollution? Because it works.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have an abysmal record when it comes to the environment and their past four budgets. They have managed Canadians' finances irresponsibly and ineffectively, which led to four years of deficits.
Who will pay for that? Our children, our grandchildren and Canadians who work hard for their money, that's who.
What is this government trying to do? Clearly, to make life even more expensive for Canadians.
Why do this government and this Prime Minister want to increase the price of gas yet again—
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with what we are doing as a government. We have created one million jobs for Canadians. We have lifted 875,000 people out of poverty. We lowered taxes on small businesses.
What are we doing, on top of all that? We are taking climate action.
I was embarrassed yesterday to hear the Conservative Party say that there was no climate emergency and that we did not need to meet our targets and work with others.
What are we leaving our children and grandchildren? A climate emergency—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, two years ago, almost to the day, the finance minister unleashed an attack on small businesses. He tried to raise taxes on their investment up to 73% and double the tax on parents selling their businesses to their children. He backed down, partially and temporarily, after a massive uprising.
I have two questions. First, will he admit that this attack on small businesses was wrong? Second, will he promise never to try it again?
Mr. Speaker, we know that results count. We are in a position where our economy is doing better than anyone expected at this stage. We have the lowest rate of unemployment we have seen in 40 years. We have the highest rate of working-age population at work than we have ever seen in history in the country.
One of the big reasons for that is small and medium-sized businesses are doing well. We lowered their tax rates. They are now experiencing the lowest tax rates among G7 countries.
We have continued to support businesses in the country and what they have done. They have created jobs so Canadians are working. It is good news all around.
Mr. Speaker, we just heard it right there. Small businesses across the land will notice that the minister had an opportunity to rule out bringing back his original tax increases that he proposed in the summer of 2017 and he refused to rule it out.
We know what is coming after the election, just like the carbon tax. We have found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the government will raise gas prices 23¢ a litre.
Why does the government not honestly admit that now, before the election?
Mr. Speaker, we did take on the additional $150 billion of debt left us by the previous Harper government. What we did was decided that with that we would actually focus on the middle class. We knew it would be the engine of growth for our country. We focused on it and we increased the amount of money going to people who were struggling to get by. Lo and behold, our economy rebounded and lo and behold, the lowest unemployment rate in four years.
That was good news, but we will keep on working for the middle class. We are going to keep making sure that businesses are successful. Our approach is working.
Mr. Speaker, I have just given two opportunities for the minister to admit that his original attack on small business people in the summer of 2017 was wrong and that he would never try it again. We know he is running out of other people's money and he will be looking for more of it if he is re-elected.
Now we find out that he is open to reintroducing his 73% tax on small business investment and he is open to doubling the tax on families selling from parent to child.
Why does he not just admit that is exactly what he will do if re-elected?
Mr. Speaker, we know that confidence among small and medium-sized businesses and confidence among large businesses is critically important. That is why we never resort to scare tactics like this.
We focus on how we can actually make a difference. The good news is that the things we have done have actually made a difference. The fact that Canadians have more money in their pockets means they are putting it back into the economy, means they are actually buying goods from small and medium-sized businesses. The good news is it is working. Canadians are doing well and we are going to keep on it.
Mr. Speaker, scare tactics? The Prime Minister said that our small businesses were nothing more than tax cheats. The finance minister tried to impose a 73% tax on small business investment. This is a government that attempted to double the tax on parents selling their businesses to children, so it would have a tax advantage in selling it to foreign multinationals. Scare tactics? The government scared the hell out of small business right across the country.
The Liberals could put some of those fears to rest if they would promise now that they will never do it again.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we listen to people in the business community to figure out what we should do to make sure our economy keeps doing well.
They have told us, first and foremost, that skills matter. What did we do? We ensured that people could have access to university by lowering the cost of university for low and middle-income Canadians. We put in place an approach to ensure that people could get the training they needed over the long term. They also told us that taxes mattered, so we lowered the taxes on small and medium-sized businesses.
We know our approach is working. We will continue to focus on what really matters to business to keep our economy—
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, we already know that saying one thing and doing the opposite is the hallmark of the Liberal Party. However, declaring a climate emergency one day and approving the expansion of a pipeline that will emit as much pollution as three million cars the next day goes beyond mere hypocrisy. They just do not give a damn what Canadians want.
How can this government claim to be for the environment while betraying future generations with its fake green policies?
Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to fight climate change. We put a price on pollution across the country, we are phasing out coal, and we are investing in a just transition. We are investing in clean technology to create jobs across Canada. We are investing in public transit and green infrastructure. We are fighting plastic pollution.
I could say more, but what Canadians and I find really disappointing is the Conservative Party. The Conservatives refuse to join all members of the House in declaring a climate emergency and saying that we must take action.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are disappointed in the Liberals, because with this irresponsible rubber stamp, Liberals are trashing the Paris agreement forever and vandalizing our coastal environment and marine life.
Climate leaders do not try to ram through raw bitumen pipelines, and they do not run roughshod over indigenous rights. Just one spill will wipe out thousands of jobs in the fisheries and in tourism for a generation.
Liberals are throwing away $17 billion from taxpayers to threaten jobs in the environment in B.C. Why did they not say no to oil lobbyists? Why did they not say yes to future generations?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government on a plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are delivering.
We have invested over $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan. We have a national climate plan with more than 50 measures, investing over $50 billion in the green economy. We are also putting in place a process to make sure resource projects move forward in the right way.
If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in any new natural resource sector. Let us look at LNG Canada. We are not sure where the NDP stands.
We are focused on getting the energy sector process to move forward in the right way.
[Translation]
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-69, all natural resource development in this country will grind to a halt. Even Quebec opposes this legislation. The Quebec environment minister has said the bill “perpetuates the duplication of environmental procedures” and “expands federal government control”.
Bill C-69 will put the brakes on electricity exports, which are an essential opportunity for Quebec's economy.
Why are the Liberals undermining Quebec's economic development?
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected, we said we would bring in better rules for reviewing major projects.
The Conservatives' plan under Stephen Harper was a disaster. The Conservatives did not listen to indigenous peoples and did not want any environmental protections. They did not even want to listen to people who expressed concerns about projects.
That is not how good projects move forward. We must protect the environment and listen to indigenous peoples—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, nine provinces are opposed to the Prime Minister's attack on resource development in Canada. The Liberals stifled debate and rammed through bills that would block oil exports and kill energy projects. Twenty-one industry leaders announced that this is the end of future growth, and those investors have abandoned this important sector.
When will the Prime Minister finally admit that his no more pipelines bill and oil export ban bill are part of his plan to phase out Canada's energy sector?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect a transparent assessment of major projects that they can trust, and businesses need assessments to be done in a timely and efficient way. The Harper Conservatives gutted this process. They made Canadians lose trust, and they hurt our economy and energy sector at the same time.
Our better rules will ensure that resource development is done in a way that protects the environment, grows our economy, properly consults indigenous peoples and creates good, middle-class jobs. That is what Canadians expect. That is what we will continue to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dismissed six premiers' calls for changes to Bill C-69 as partisan, but he also rejected requests from the Liberal premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for offshore oil and gas. The Liberals have already killed over $100 billion in major projects, and the Bank of Canada predicts no new energy investment after 2019.
Will the Liberals kill these anti-energy bills before it is too late?
Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper's failed system gutted environmental assessments. He rammed through a new process, without any consultation, through an omnibus budget bill.
What did that get us? It got us more polarization. It got us fights across the country. What did it not get us? Good projects were not able to go ahead in a timely way.
We built better rules that will ensure that we listen to indigenous peoples, that we protect the environment, that we listen to the concerns of Canadians. Yes, they will ensure that good projects are built in a timely way, because we have $500 billion of economic opportunity—
Mr. Speaker, businesses, municipalities and indigenous communities say the Liberals' anti-pipeline, anti-rail, anti-hydro, anti-business bill, Bill C-69, would hurt all of Canada.
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters said it will make it “in some cases, impossible...[for]...nationally significant natural resource development”. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said “the impacts will be severe across Canada”. Nine provinces and all territories want major changes to Bill C-69. Quebec calls it a “veto” over economic development.
Will the Liberals stop Bill C-69?
Mr. Speaker, we are putting in place better rules to protect the environment, respect indigenous rights, attract investment and create good, middle-class jobs. Hundreds of major resource projects worth over $500 billion in investments are planned across Canada over the next 10 years. A robust project list will ensure good projects can move forward in a timely, transparent way that protects the environment, rebuilds public trust and strengthens our economy.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, we have a housing crisis in Canada, and the Liberals are failing to address it. The PBO report shows that the Liberals are inflating their own figures while families in our communities are facing constant stress to find a place to call home. The report says the Liberals are doing even less to help people with immediate housing needs than the Harper government did. I find this shameful. Enough with the empty promises. Will the government act now to end homelessness and ensure families in Canada have a place to call home?
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the national housing strategy. As the PBO correctly identifies, the 62% increase in front-line services to fight homelessness will help us reduce chronic homelessness by 50%. As well, we are targeted on lifting 500,000 Canadians out of core housing need.
What the PBO does not count is the Canada housing benefit, an $8.4 billion program. The report also does not take into account the federal-provincial-territorial agreements that we have locked in, which guarantee a 15% increase in housing supply. It also does not properly qualify the loans and financing that are building thousands of housing units across the country.
The national housing strategy is working, building real housing for real people.
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, a Powell River judge sentenced a crab poacher recently. In her decision, she noted that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is woefully understaffed. Law-abiding fishers struggle to make ends meet because of climate change, habitat destruction and tighter restrictions while they have no choice but to watch as poachers and over-harvesting destroy local ecosystems.
Will the minister listen to this judge and to my constituents and get more DFO staff on the water doing the work they need to do?
Mr. Speaker, this government has done an enormous amount of work to restore the capacity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans after it was gutted by the previous Harper government. There were $100 million in operating cost reductions and the gutting of the Fisheries Act in 2012.
We have just restored the protections in the Fisheries Act. We made significant investments in science. We made significant investments in enforcement and protection. We will continue to do so, so that the fisheries are managed in a sustainable way, going forward.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I wear this beaded jacket that has the image of indigenous women so we may never forget that we all have a role in giving a voice to those who have been ignored for far too long.
In 2017, Bill S-3 was finally passed with a delay concerning the 1951 cut-off criteria. The government said it needed time to consult on an implementation plan. The minister's special representative has completed her consultations and report, which was just tabled in Parliament. Indigenous women and their descendants want to know. When will they finally have their human rights restored?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for his ongoing advocacy on this. Gender equality is a fundamental human right, and Bill S-3 does eliminate the sex-based discrimination from the Indian Act.
With the ministerial special representative's consultations concluded and her report tabled, we now know what our partners need in a successful implementation plan. Work on that implementation plan is well under way, and I can confirm that we will be bringing these provisions into force within the current mandate. We are committed to working with our partners to remedy all remaining registration issues, but also to accelerate the progress to self-determination by which nations—
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, the government has no credibility on environmental matters. It says its plan will enable Canada to uphold its commitment to the Paris Agreement targets.
Experts, scientists, environmental groups and government officials unanimously agree that Canada is not going to meet its targets. Only the Liberals think they know better, and their refusal to tell Canadians the truth is hypocritical. The Liberals need to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Why is this Liberal government not telling the truth?
Mr. Speaker, why did the Conservatives vote against the motion on the climate emergency? Is it because they refuse to listen to the science on climate change? Do they not realize that we are already paying the price? Are they not aware that even Quebec, the province that the member represents, has a carbon exchange that is working?
Quebec is lowering its emissions, it has a clean technology sector, and Quebeckers are happy. Maybe the member should try talking to Quebeckers.
[English]
Order. I have heard from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies many times today, and normally I enjoy that, but he has not had the floor. I would ask him to wait until he has the floor before interjecting.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have fallen far short of their Paris targets, and that should come as no surprise. They do not have a climate plan. They have a tax plan. Whether pretending that they will not raise the carbon tax past $50 per tonne or trotting out ministers to criticize a climate plan they have not even seen yet, the Liberals are increasingly desperate to distract from their own climate failures.
When will the minister tell the truth and finally admit that they will not meet their Paris targets?
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to 2015. The member opposite came to Paris. He came when we negotiated the Paris agreement. He came when Canada said that we are back, that we are serious, that we are taking climate action. We negotiated for one year a climate plan with more than 50 measures.
Yesterday, we saw the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party. Those members voted against a climate emergency motion. They voted against taking action to meet our Paris agreement targets. They voted against a safe and cleaner future for our kids. They voted against a $26 trillion opportunity—
[Translation]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the China crisis is going from bad to worse. Canada's international reputation is in tatters because of this Prime Minister. China is not even taking his calls.
Like China, it is time the Liberal leader stopped making excuses. First it was canola and soy, and now China is targeting the pork sector even though it desperately needs Canadian pork. Standing up for photo ops is one thing, but standing up for our producers is quite another.
Why is the Prime Minister incapable of standing up to China?
It is quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the House that we are standing up for Canada and have been since this all started. Our Canadian pork producers provide very high-quality products.
It is true that China informed us that it had suspended a pork producer after detecting the presence of a feed additive that is permitted under international standards but prohibited in China. I can assure the House that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is monitoring this matter closely. We are taking this very seriously.
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, for months the government has defended its lack of progress with China by claiming that it has built a coalition of countries who support freeing two Canadians from a Chinese prison. While a consensus among friends is helpful, the Prime Minister has yet to translate this global support into action. It rests with the Prime Minister to step up himself and demonstrate we are serious when dealing with China.
When will the Prime Minister act to break this deadlock with China and free our wrongfully imprisoned Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, as with every issue, our priority is the best interests of Canada and Canadians. We have ensured that China is well aware of every one of our positions. We have indeed rallied an unprecedented number of countries who are speaking out in support of Canadians.
This should not be about grandstanding. It should not be about scoring political points. This is about working persistently, carefully and resolutely to get brave Canadians home and to ensure that our farmers have access to markets.
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, Canadians depend on services like health care, education and supports for children with autism. Instead of properly funding them, Liberal and Conservative governments across this country keep telling Canadians to expect less and slashing services. Meanwhile, rich corporations have avoided paying $26 billion in taxes. Why are they getting away with it? Imagine the services Canadians could receive with that money.
Will the Liberals ever have the courage to stand up to rich corporations, or will they continue to watch and do nothing as Canadians struggle?
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the unique challenges that Canadians face when they are dealing with autism. That is why we are taking action to support them through community-based projects, a national research and exchange network program to help them find work and groundbreaking new research.
We will continue to work with community groups, caregivers and others to ensure that all Canadians with autism get the support and the help they need.
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, as a result of inaction on the part of successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we are losing out on $26 billion in taxes every year, and the minister refuses to go after it.
To put that number into context, it is enough to build eight superhospitals like Montreal's CHUM hospital, six Champlain Bridges or 650,000 affordable housing units.
When will the government and the Minister of National Revenue find an ounce of courage to finally reform our outdated tax laws, which favour the wealthiest Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague obviously has not read the five CRA reports on this topic. He is talking about tax gap estimates from 2014. That was before our government began tackling the problem, following 10 years of Conservative inaction.
Those estimates confirm that tax evasion is a problem. We are on the right track, having made historic investments of over $1 billion in the Canada Revenue Agency. Unlike the Conservatives and the NDP, we believe in making decisions based on facts.
Canada Summer Jobs Program
Mr. Speaker, the Canada summer jobs program is supposed to get young people working, but we learned that the Liberals are using it to fund organizations that are linked with terrorist entities.
The Islamic Society of North America, in the riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore, has been banned by the Canada Revenue Agency for its ties to certain organizations. It cannot even take a cheque, yet the Liberals are giving it money.
Do they take the threat of terrorism seriously? If so, when will the minister revoke the grant?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, obviously, this government stands against terrorism. I understand the member's concerns. My officials are looking into this.
As I said, we expect all organizations that receive funding for Canada summer jobs to abide by the terms and conditions of the program. I have asked the department to examine the organization in question. If in fact the organization is using the money in a way that violates anybody's charter rights or places that student in an unsafe position, then it will not be eligible for reimbursement for that position.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that charter rights are granted to those who call Canada home. We are talking about terrorist activities that are taking place in Pakistan.
The question is simple. The number one responsibility of any government is to uphold the rule of law. It is particularly problematic then that the money in this case went to where it did.
Here is the thing. To receive Canada jobs funding, organizations have to pass the Liberals' autocratic values test. Did this organization in fact pass the Liberals' test on this?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should put the whistle down. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the member would spread such dishonest rhetoric. What can we expect from the party that reads the words of an Islamophobic terrorist into committee record or the party that associates with Faith Goldy or Rebel Media and their hateful conspiracy theories? Of course, that is the party that has shared a stage with those who have been removed from Facebook for their white nationalist views. We will not take lessons from that party.
Order, please. Members naturally are going to hear things they do not like during question period and perhaps other times, too. I do not understand why members do not think it is important to listen whether they agree or not.
I would urge members to be judicious in their comments. I also ask the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills not to be yelling when someone else has the floor.
The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister is scared to answer the actual question.
The Liberals have given $26,000 in Canada summer jobs funding to a group linked to terrorism. The activities of that group, the Islamic Society of North America-Canada, are known to the government because the Canada Revenue Agency already suspended its charitable status because of its connection to militant extremists. That did not stop the Liberal MP for Mississauga—Lakeshore from signing off on the funding.
The minister has had this file on her desk for a week. It should have taken her five minutes. Why does she not cancel the funding today?
Mr. Speaker, it is heartwarming to hear the member opposite cares so much now about jobs for kids. In fact, if the Conservatives were so concerned about jobs for Canadian youth, why did they oppose critical funding for things like the youth employment skills strategy, or the work-integrated early learning program or apprenticeship grants? Why did they let the youth unemployment rate reach the highest rates since the nineties under their watch?
Our government had doubled the program. In fact, since we have been elected, over 70,000 students each summer have received quality student jobs, which has led to the lowest youth unemployment record—
Health
Mr. Speaker, both as a member of Parliament and a physician, I have heard from constituents, patients and many others about the high cost of prescription drugs. Canadians are proud of their universal public health care system, but we know that nearly one million Canadians have to give up essentials like food to pay for their medication. That is why I am heartened to see our government taking action on this critical issue.
Could the Minister of Health update the House on our work to make prescription drugs affordable for more Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Manitoba for his important work on the health committee and also his advocacy for pharmacare.
No Canadian should have to choose between putting food on their table and paying for prescription medication. That is why our government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians have access to a national pharmacare program, and the work is under way. In budget 2019, there are $35 million to create the Canadian drug agency and also $1 billion to address the high cost of rare diseases.
We will not rest until every Canadian has access to a national pharmacare program.
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister claimed the Liberal MP for Steveston—Richmond East had addressed allegations of his law firm's handling of a Chinese drug boss's real estate deal. This week, faced by details of another suspicious deal, revealed by B.C.'s money laundering inquiry, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction would not address unproven allegations.
The Prime Minister attacks small business owners as tax cheats without evidence, but in this latest emerging Liberal scandal, no action. Why is there one set of rules for Liberals and another for everyone else?
Mr. Speaker, the member for Thornhill may wish to test the veracity of his speculations outside the protection of the House.
However, let us talk about money laundering. Our government has demonstrated that we will take all measures available to us to stop organized crime. That includes an investment of $172 million to the RCMP for FINTRAC and CRA to establish an enforcement team, as well as making Criminal Code amendments.
That is the same government that in the last four years of the Harper government took $500 million from the RCMP and closed all 12 of the—
[Translation]
Telecommunications
Mr. Speaker, people from my riding are here in Ottawa to protest against the Telus tower that is being forced on Otterburn Park. Students Romane, Laurence and Emma-Rose from École Notre-Dame launched a petition signed by about 100 students to protect their magnificent woodland.
If the minister will not listen to the citizen movement or to the municipality, will he listen to the young people who want to protect the environment from the Telus tower? Will he block the tower in Otterburn Park?
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, our government believes that communities should have a say in where cell towers are installed in their area.
Telecommunications companies also need to consult communities in an open and transparent manner. However, this matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, a 2004 RCMP report concluded that the RCMP 911 call centre should be “outside of HRM given the risks of placing the two largest police communications centres in close proximity to each other”. The risks given were a risk of environmental disasters and threats to our communications system. Strangely, a new RCMP report says that the 2004 concerns were reassessed and they were no longer a risk.
Would the minister ask the RCMP to make available the study that explains why environmental disasters and communications threats were a risk in 2004—
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in touch with me many times about this matter. The safety of Nova Scotians is the top priority for the RCMP's H Division, which functions as Nova Scotia's provincial police force. In that capacity, it makes the necessary decisions about the most effective deployment of provincial assets and facilities, including the provincial operations and communications centre.
It is obtaining the counsel of an independent assessor to ensure that its provincial responsibilities are safely and properly discharged in the best interest of Nova Scotians.
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Speaker, in March 2016, the Prime Minister promised to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. He said, “I’m confident that we are on a track towards resolving this irritant in the coming weeks and month.” That was three years ago. Yesterday, the third mill in my riding in two weeks closed its doors.
The Liberals have lots of time for their millionaire friends, but when it comes to B.C. workers, they cannot lift a finger.
Will the Prime Minister finally make good on his promise to resolve the softwood lumber dispute and save jobs?
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Conservatives simply do not know what they are talking about on this issue. Our government saw the consequences of the wretched quota deal the Conservatives accepted on softwood lumber, which is why we refused to accept the tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum.
We are continuing our legal challenges against the U.S. softwood duties through NAFTA, through the WTO, where Canadian softwood has always won in the past.
Our government will always defend Canadian workers and Canadian industry.
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Relations
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said yesterday that Bill 21 violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms and that he would always defend the charter. He was basically saying that he intends to challenge the Government of Quebec's secularism law.
My question is simple. Is the minister going to wait until after the election to challenge Bill 21, for fear of alienating Quebeckers?
Mr. Speaker, our position has always been clear. It is not up to the government or to politicians to tell people what to wear or not to wear.
Canada is already a secular country, and that is reflected in our institutions. We believe that this new law violates fundamental rights and individual freedoms. We will always defend the charter.
Mr. Speaker, the government already dictates what people can and cannot wear. Soldiers, RCMP officers and prison guards all wear uniforms. Male MPs have to wear a tie in order to be recognized in the House of Commons. I do not hear the Minister of Justice objecting to those rules.
What is the real reason that the Minister of Justice wants to challenge a state secularism law that is supported by the people of Quebec?
[English]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, free speech is the foundation of a free society, yet after erasing the statement of the member for St. Albert—Edmonton from the record, the justice committee proposed several measures to censure free speech on the Internet.
Does the government understand that the novel 1984 was meant to be a warning against the dangers of a totalitarian society and not an instruction manual?
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, free expression is something that we value in the country. He should also know that in the current context with online platforms, the limits of free speech, justifiable limits of free speech, is something that any government should be looking into, as the Prime Minister did when he was in Paris and looked at the Christchurch declaration.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Access to Information Act
The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-58.
Call in the members.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 1367)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Amos
Anandasangaree
Arya
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Baylis
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Boissonnault
Bossio
Bratina
Breton
Carr
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Cormier
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Drouin
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dzerowicz
Easter
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Fergus
Fillmore
Finnigan
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Fuhr
Garneau
Gerretsen
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Graham
Hajdu
Hardie
Hébert
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Joly
Jones
Jordan
Jowhari
Kang
Khalid
Khera
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leslie
Levitt
Lightbound
Lockhart
Long
Longfield
Ludwig
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
May (Cambridge)
McCrimmon
McDonald
McGuinty
McKenna
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs)
Monsef
Morneau
Morrissey
Murray
Nassif
Ng
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
Ouellette
Paradis
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Philpott
Picard
Poissant
Qualtrough
Ratansi
Rioux
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simms
Sorbara
Spengemann
Tabbara
Tan
Tassi
Tootoo
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Virani
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Zahid
Total: -- 164
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Albrecht
Alleslev
Allison
Anderson
Arnold
Aubin
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Benson
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Blaikie
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boucher
Boudrias
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brassard
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Carrie
Chong
Choquette
Christopherson
Clarke
Cooper
Cullen
Davidson
Davies
Deltell
Diotte
Doherty
Dreeshen
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Eglinski
Fast
Finley
Fortin
Gallant
Garrison
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Gourde
Grewal
Hardcastle
Harder
Hoback
Hughes
Jeneroux
Johns
Jolibois
Julian
Kelly
Kent
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Laverdière
Liepert
Lloyd
Lukiwski
MacGregor
MacKenzie
Maguire
Manly
Martel
Masse (Windsor West)
Mathyssen
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McColeman
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound)
Moore
Motz
Nantel
Nater
Nicholson
Nuttall
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Plamondon
Poilievre
Quach
Raitt
Ramsey
Rankin
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Sansoucy
Saroya
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Singh
Sorenson
Stanton
Ste-Marie
Stetski
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Thériault
Tilson
Trost
Trudel
Van Kesteren
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weir
Wong
Yurdiga
Zimmer
Total: -- 134
PAIRED
Members
BeaulieuLeBlanc
Total: -- 2
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—The Environment
[Business of Supply]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George, and what a debate it will be. After all, the cat is out of the bag.
Earlier today, I asked the finance minister if he would rule out bringing back his small business tax increases. Members will remember them, the ones he ruled out in the summer of 2017, after the Prime Minister had said that small businesses are typically just wealthy tax cheats. The minister went out and tried to impose tax increases that would cost 73% on the dollar for every small business investment, and then he increased taxes on income and work shared among members of a family business.
We remember when the Liberals tried to double the tax paid when a parent sells a business to a child. We remember when they put forward a proposal that would allow foreign multinationals to pay half the tax if they bought a Canadian family business, and then the kids of that family business would pay. We remember how our farmers feared that this would mean that within a generation we would have nothing but foreign-owned farms where farm kids would be turned into tenants to foreign landlords on their own ancestral lands. That was the shock and dismay that Canadian entrepreneurs felt when the finance minister struck out and attacked them in the summer of 2017.
Then Canadians fought back. Local chambers of commerce, shopkeepers, pizza shop owners, plumbers, farmers, people who had never met all locked arms and said that was enough. For far too long, the government had been picking their pockets and they just quietly went on their way, showing the typical Canadian culture of deference.
However, when this tax increase struck, it went too far, and entrepreneurs decided that they were going to unite and defeat these tax changes. They were only partially successful. The minister then agreed to put some of the most egregious parts of his original proposal on hold. There was a great sigh of relief, but I think people were under a misconception that the government had backed down. In fact, headlines screamed out that the finance minister had backed down from small business tax changes.
The truth is that he never backed down. He simply put those changes on hold, leaving open the possibility that they might one day come back. He never once admitted that the proposals were flawed or wrong. He simply said they were politically impossible so close to an election. He made the pragmatic calculation to put them on hold. On hold until when, one might ask. The answer is quite simple: until after the election, when the Liberals no longer need voters but still need their money.
Of course, the Liberals are running out of other people's money. The deficit is $20 billion. The budget has not balanced itself. In fact, the deficit is growing year after year, and the government needs a way to pay for its insatiable spending habit. What Liberals hope now is that Canadians will not ask them how they will pay for it until after the election is over, when voters cannot do anything about it because it will be four more years until the subsequent election—
I want to interrupt the hon. member for Carleton. He is trying to give a speech and there is a murmur going on in the background. I just want to remind hon. members, and if there is anything going on in the corridor, maybe we can check to make sure it is quieter over there.
I will let the hon. member for Carleton continue.
Mr. Speaker, the government hopes that people will not ask any questions about where all the money will come from. The Prime Minister will just take out a fire hose and spray cash in all directions in the hopes that a grateful population will re-elect him and put him back in the Prime Minister's Office. Only days later, he will spring upon them a whole series of tax increases that they did not anticipate and that he did not mention.
That is why I rose to my feet today to ask the finance minister if he would simply commit that his original tax increases on small businesses were flawed and that they will never be introduced again. He could have just stood up and said that it was a mistake and he would not do it again; that we have his word that if they are re-elected there would be no new tax increases on small businesses. He could have just said that and sat down. Frankly, I would have been quite deflated. I do not know what else I could have asked at that point. Instead, when he stood up, he refused to answer the question at all. He rattled off a bunch of governmental talking points that had been handed to him by junior staffers in the Prime Minister's Office, but he did not rule out bringing back those tax increases. Therefore, the message for small business owners is not to tell us they were not warned. It is clear what the current government will do.
In fact, the original small business tax increases that small business owners fought in town halls and in street protests and in thousands of letters will probably be law by Christmas Day if this Prime Minister is re-elected.
The election is in late October. There will be a short session before Christmas. A Liberal government will want to do its most unpopular decisions between its return and Christmas so that it can hope everyone will forget about it four years later when they go back to the polls in 2023. Therefore, we know that is the window when this will happen. For small business persons out there somewhere working away, the warning goes out now that they have only four months to help stop the reintroduction of those tax increases that were devastating and even existential to their businesses.
This is consistent with everything the government has done. Already the average Canadian family is paying about $800 more in income tax alone. In fairness, people who are very wealthy are paying less. Wealthy taxpayers paid about $4.5 billion less in taxes in the year after the Prime Minister introduced his income tax changes, but everyone else is paying more. They lost their children's fitness tax credit, their public transit tax credit and their education and textbook tax credits. Small business owners now pay new penalties for saving within the companies, for sharing work and earnings with family members. They pay a carbon tax, for which there is no small business rebate. Payroll taxes are now on the rise.
Despite all of these Liberal tax increases on the middle class and on small businesses, there is still a shortfall. This is in an environment where real estate has boomed and the world economy has been on fire, all of which has caused a flood of unexpected revenues into government coffers. The Prime Minister blew every penny of those additional revenues and billions of dollars more.
Here we are in 2019, the year in which the budget was going to balance itself, and we have another $20-billion deficit. He put his hand on his heart and said he was looking Canadians in the eye and speaking truthfully to them as he always has, and that they would balance the budget in 2019. Those were the words of the Prime Minister at the Maclean's debate in the last election. He smashed that promise to smithereens. Thereafter, we cannot believe a single thing he says about money.
As the pressure mounts, the Liberals will start to deny it. They will deny it until they are red in the face, but the reality is that if the government is re-elected, there will be massive and crippling tax increases targeted on the working class and small businesses to fund ongoing, out-of-control spending. By contrast, Conservatives will put forward a plan that requires that the government live within its means, leave more in people's pockets and let them get ahead, and a free market economy that rewards merit rather than political connections and that puts people before government.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague intently, who I have the pleasure of sitting on the finance committee with, to see if he would offer up some new ideas or policies instead of regurgitating talking points that I constantly hear.
He did speak about small businesses, so I will comment on that. He did not mention the small business tax rate that we reduced from 11% to 9% that benefits over 11,000 businesses in the city of Vaughan. He did not talk about the accelerated investment incentive that allows businesses across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, to fully write off their investments in a full year. He did not speak to the EI rates that are now the lowest in a generation that are benefiting businesses across the country. He did not talk about the Canada pension plan that is going to benefit hard-working Canadians, who go to work every day and save for their futures, which is portable, indexed and the model for the entire world. He did not reference those things. Then, when he should have been speaking about climate change, he did not even speak about whether he believes in climate change or we should act.
I would ask the member across the aisle what he thinks we should do about climate change and how we should reduce emissions going forward. We have a plan. Where is your plan?
I would remind hon. members to place their questions through the Chair.
The hon. member for Carleton.
One more sleep, Mr. Speaker, and we will have a plan that lowers emissions and taxes, just like we did last time, unlike the Liberal government, which has raised emissions and taxes.
Let us go through the tax policy issues for small businesses that he mentioned. One is the small business tax rate. The previous Conservative government reduced the small business tax rate from 13% down to 11% and then 11% down to 9%. One of the first things the Liberal finance minister did is raise it back to 11% from 9%. Then, in the midst of a tax revolt, while he and the Prime Minister were running away with their tails between their legs in full retreat, they reinstated the tax increase that they had repealed when they first took office. That is the reality of the small business tax reduction.
As for the carbon tax, there is no rebate for small businesses. They bear the full brunt of the extra heating, transportation, cooling and other energy costs that they must bear. Only those businesses that can pump 50,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases through their chimneys are able to get an exemption from the carbon tax, but normal mom-and-pop shops, small construction companies and pizza shops pay the full tax, with no rebate and no support whatsoever. That is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan.
Mr. Speaker, we should be talking about climate science, what target is appropriate in order to hold to 1.5°C and why it is essential for the survival of not only our economy but our civilization that we make the transitions that are required. At this point, we are still having political battles over a carbon tax, which is a very small part of the overall plan.
I know we are waiting for the big unveil tomorrow, but I want to remind the member, because I have a good memory, that we were supposed to see a complete plan from former environment minister John Baird in April 2007. It was called the “Turning the Corner” plan, but it was never completed. It had some good elements, but it never happened. His successor, whom we all miss, anyone who had the great honour of meeting him, former environment minister Jim Prentice, also tried in that era to put in place something that would look like a plan.
I have not seen a reasonable carbon plan from any party or government at the federal level since the spring of 2005 when former prime minister Paul Martin brought one forward. I wonder if the member could give us any sense of why we would have confidence that whatever the leader of the official opposition announces tomorrow is going to actually turn into the plan he initially announces.
Mr. Speaker, under the previous Conservative government, we did introduce sector-by-sector rules to reduce emissions at an industrial level. We also brought in improved standards for tailpipe emissions. Along with other measures that I do not have time to mention because of the time limit, we actually saw, for the first time in measured history in Canada, a reduction in overall greenhouse gases in absolute terms.
All of that proves that taxes are not the best way to reduce emissions, technology is. We need to increase the technology and the advancement of our economy, so we can deliver an improved quality of life with lower energy consumption at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague from Carleton. As a new father, I know that he considers this a very important debate. I know he takes this matter very seriously.
It is all about a better future for our children. The Minister of Environment has said that lots of times in this House, very loudly and very passionately. We all strive to leave our country better off for those who will come after us. This debate is about the future. It is about ensuring our children have a better future.
It has been interesting over the last three and a half years and indeed over the last couple weeks as we debate Bill C-48, Bill C-68, Bill C-69 and Bill C-88. Again, on the virtue-signalling motion that we had last night, Motion No. 29, everybody wants to know how everybody voted. I was travelling, I landed and all of a sudden the media wanted to know how we voted on it. Motion No. 29 does nothing. It declares that we all agree there is a climate emergency, but there is nothing behind it. There are no critical steps behind it to actually make things better. We have a carbon tax that the Liberal government implemented that does nothing but punish Canadians who live in rural communities.
I want to read something into the record:
“...to constrain the growth of...production by increasing the perception of financial risks by potential investors and by choking off the necessary infrastructure (inputs and outputs)...[the campaign’s original strategy states]. We will accomplish this by raising the visibility of the negatives associated with...[the production]; initiating legal challenges in order to force government and corporate decision-makers to take steps that raise the costs of production and block delivery infrastructure; and by generating support for federal and state legislation that pre-empts future demand for tar sands oil.
It also says this: How are we going to do that? Demarketing, raise the negatives, raise the costs, slow down and stop the infrastructure, enrol key decision-makers, goals, we want to influence debate, a moratorium, strategy, stop or limit pipelines, refineries, significantly reduce future demand for Canadian oil, leverage debate for policy victories in the U.S. and Canada, resources required, first nations and other legal challenges, public mobilization in Ontario and Quebec.
Members would be forgiven if they thought that was the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment. That is exactly what we are up against, the dogma that we hear, that is spread, the language that we hear time and again.
It is interesting that the carbon tax targets soccer moms and small businesses, but does not go up against the very same polluters of the campaigns, Greenpeace, TIDES, the World Wildlife Fund and all these groups that now have executives or members who are former executives in the highest offices of the Liberal government. It does nothing. It gives those very same polluters a pass.
There is no denying that climate change is real. Humans contribute to the problem. We all must do our part to address the problem, but a carbon tax is not a climate plan. The Prime Minister does not have a climate plan, he has a tax plan.
Time and again it has been said that my province of British Columbia is seen as a success, yet we have had a carbon tax for over 10 years. When it was first introduced, it was supposed to be revenue-neutral, and now it is not. It goes in one hand and stays in the government coffers. It was supposed to lower emissions, and we know that that is not the case.
Over the last two summers, we have had some of the worst wildfires in our province's history. In my riding alone, we have had the worst fire season, the largest mass evacuation in our province's history.
I have stood in this House and asked how high the carbon tax has to be before we start to see those wildfires and natural disasters mitigated and lessened. I cannot seem to get an answer. As a matter of fact, I was laughed at when I asked that question.
The Liberals have pandered to the environmental lobbyists for the last four years. As a matter of fact, what we are seeing today with the legislation and all this virtue signalling they are doing with their hands on their hearts is payback for the 2015 election. Leading into this next election, they want to make sure that they are solidly behind them.
They have had four years to come out with a real plan, and the best they can do is a carbon tax. The Minister of Environment stands up here and shouts loudly so that we will all believe her, yet time and again, she has approved the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways.
A great Senate amendment came forward regarding third-party habitat banking, and I will go back to Bill C-68, where we talked about that. Where there is displacement of fish or fish habitat because of a project, it would allow the government to enlist people who are experts to create fish habitat. However, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department turned that down, and we heard testimony that they were the only people around the table who did not seem interested in creating fish habitat.
The Liberals like to stand up there, with all their environmental credits and their peeps behind them, saying that what they are doing is for the good of the country. We know that all they are doing is making things less affordable for those of us who live in rural communities.
I do not know if there is a fuel available that can power a logging truck or a freight truck. Our forestry sector has taken a massive hit since the current government has been in power, because we do not have a softwood lumber agreement. I will not put all the forestry downturn on the current government. However, it could have taken some major steps forward in assisting our forestry industry by securing a softwood lumber agreement.
We live in rural areas. Many of our first nations live off-grid. They have to power their communities with diesel. What has the government done to lift any of those first nations off their dependency on diesel and fossil fuels?
What about rural communities? At one point, we were a resource-driven economy. However, we know from the Prime Minister's very first speech that, under his government, our country has become known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources. I guess that was a promise he has kept, because we have seen the government attack our natural resources sector time and again.
As we speak, there are forestry families who are receiving more layoff notices in my riding and in my home province of British Columbia. They do not have other projects or other opportunities to go to. What will they do? What is it that our Minister of Environment said? There is $500 million worth of opportunity. Where is it? It is not in our rural communities. In some of our northern climates, we cannot plug any of our school buses in. We cannot plug logging trucks or freight trucks in. We need them to get our goods to market.
Everything this carbon tax does makes the way of life in rural communities more expensive. This is not an environmental plan. It is a revenue plan, and it is on the backs of rural communities and rural Canadians. That is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a price on pollution nationally for 78 days. However, I want to speak specifically about our home province of British Columbia.
This member knows that the Conservatives' number one promise is that if they are able to form government, the first day they are elected they will remove the revenue-neutral federal backstop. This will do absolutely zero to change the price on pollution in British Columbia, because that price on pollution was implemented by the B.C. Liberals and has continued to be supported by the NDP. Both sides of the B.C. government support carbon prices in British Columbia. Why? It is because it has been effective. Per capita emissions have gone down, while we have had one of the fastest-growing economies in the country.
Basically, what this member is promising his constituents back home is that we will continue to pay carbon taxes in B.C., but he will get rid of them for the rest of the country. How does he think that is fair?
Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague is being disingenuous. British Columbia has the highest fuel prices in all of North America. We know that under the Liberal government, if the Liberals are re-elected in October, those gas prices are going to have to go up at least another 23¢ a litre. That is punishing those in our province who live in rural communities, and in particular, those in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.
Mr. Speaker, there was a recent poll reported in the Toronto Star, on May 15, 2019, with the headline, “Majority of Conservatives favour pollution pricing: poll”. It shows that 60% of self-identified Conservatives said that there either “must” or “should ideally” be a price on pollution.
If the member wants us to support the motion, which says that the Conservatives want to replace this with a real environmental plan, I would ask him what he thinks of the poll and what the plan is the Conservatives want to bring forward that we could look at and maybe support.
Mr. Speaker, I should turn the tables on our hon. NDP colleague and ask him what he thinks of the poll that came out today that says that the Green Party is ahead of the NDP. Polls are polls.
I would say that as much as the Liberals and the NDP want to say that the Conservatives are not for the environment but are against the environment, we are first and foremost ranchers, farmers, hunters and anglers. We are for the environment. We are conservationists at heart. I cannot wait until our colleagues, and indeed Canadians, see the environmental plan our leader is unveiling tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, carbon taxes are part of a solution. They are not the whole solution. I know that has been hammered on by the hon. member and his Conservative colleagues. We need a whole spectrum of things to deal with climate change.
We live in a climate emergency. If members visit my riding, they will see that the forests are dying. We were already in drought stages in early March, when rivers and lakes were at August levels. The cedars and firs are dying. We had a horrific windstorm in the winter. We have material all over the forest floor, and we are worried about the fire season.
We need climate action, and part of climate action is to disincentivize the use of fossil fuels by using a carbon tax. We need incentives in place to help consumers, landlords and businesses make the transition away from using fossil fuels to deal with this climate emergency, because we have to get to zero emissions by 2050. We do not have a choice. This is not something that we can delay any longer. The scientists are telling us that we are out of time and that we need to deal with it. Carbon taxes are one of the tools we need to use.
Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome our hon. colleague to the House. This is the first time I have had a chance to address him. However, I believe he flew here. I do not think he walked here. Therefore, my challenge is that as we move away from fossil fuels, what are we going to go to? The reality is that we have to drive to work in rural communities. In my community, we have to drive for services. We have to fly. We have to ship our goods. How do we do that? Until we have a viable option for fossil fuels, it is not possible.
I would agree with my hon. colleague that we have to have a whole host of programs to fix the environment, but a carbon tax is not one of them, because it does nothing. It is a revenue plan for the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, most of my speech will be in English, but I want to start by talking about the price on pollution.
I agree with my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith that this is not the one and only solution. There are many others.
As for the use of our vehicles—
Order. It seems we can no longer hear the interpreters.
The problem seems to be fixed.
The hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert.
Mr. Speaker, we will obviously need to use cars, planes and other modes of transportation that run on fuel, which we want to phase out over the coming years. This transition will take time. However, we must make choices.
My colleague complained that gas in British Columbia is very expensive. This is true. I noticed the price when I was there recently. People need to choose cars that consume less fuel. These types of cars exist. That is one way to reduce our dependence on gas.
[English]
An hon. member: That's why you are not saying it in English.
Mr. Speaker, why should I not say it in English? I can say it English. We should choose cars that consume less. It is doable. They exist. I did not invent them. They are there.
An hon. member: That is perfect. Thank you.
Mrs. Alexandra Mendès: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is what we need to do. We need to choose—
I just want to remind the hon. members that shouting or even talking across the aisle is not conducive to debate. I encourage them to put their comments through the Speaker. Also, while the Speaker is speaking, I would appreciate it if members did not talk to him.
The hon. member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert.
Mr. Speaker, Canada and the world are facing a real climate emergency. This was made very clear with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on global warming.
Climate-related risks to our health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, safety and security and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5° and increase further if we surpass 1.5° Celsius.
Here at home, Canadians are already feeling the impacts of climate change. Communities in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have once again suffered record-breaking flooding in the spring. Thousands of residents in northern Alberta were evacuated because of out-of-control wildfires. Last summer, in the province of Quebec, the deaths of more than 90 people were linked to the heat wave.
Extreme events are becoming more frequent, more devastating for Canadians and more expensive in terms of both disaster response and recovery.
My children and grandchildren have now lived through two severe floods and two tornadoes in the Ottawa region in the past four years. We now have to constantly worry about ticks that carry Lyme disease. These impacts have now become their normal, and it is not right.
The Government of Canada recognizes that the impacts of climate change will only continue to be more devastating if no action is taken.
We also recognize that Canada is one of the highest per capita emitters in the world and consistently ranks in the top 10 of the world's highest absolute GHG emitters. How could we expect other countries to reduce their emissions if we do not do the same?
In 2015, this government was involved in the negotiation of the Paris agreement with a delegation that included representatives from the three political parties as well as indigenous leaders. We all came together with the rest of the world, and for the first time ever, every country's representative said that they were going to act on climate change.
Canada pushed countries to limit temperature increases to 1.5°, because this is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts, such as increases in average temperature, heavy precipitation and severe droughts devastating local ecosystems and the Canadian way of life.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.
In 2016, we came together again to develop a national climate plan with concrete measures to reduce emissions, build resilience and grow the economy. Our plan includes more than 50 concrete measures, regulations, standards, programs and investments to achieve our goal, and pricing carbon pollution is an important and effective part of that.
Our plan includes putting a price on carbon pollution, because it is the most effective way to reduce emissions. It sends an important signal to the markets and provides an incentive for businesses to reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency measures. Hence, my mention of cars that consume less. We know it works.
Last year, the three provinces that already put in place their own carbon pollution pricing, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta, were also among the top performers in GDP growth across Canada.
This climate action is so effective that more than 74 jurisdictions around the world, representing about half of the world economy, have adopted it as part of their plans to reach the Paris agreement targets. Doctors, industry leaders and Nobel Prize-winning experts have all agreed that putting a price on pollution is effective and have demanded that governments take this action.
Pollution should not be free anywhere across this country. Based on analysis conducted by Environment and Climate Change Canada, putting a price on carbon pollution would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 million to 60 million tonnes in 2022. This is equivalent to shutting down about 30 to 35 coal-fired electricity-generating units for a year.
It is also important to note that all direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system will be returned to the jurisdictions in which they were collected. Households receive a climate action incentive, which gives most families more than what they pay and creates incentives for cleaner choices. Funds will also be given to the province's schools, hospitals, businesses and indigenous communities to, for example, help them become more energy efficient and reduce emissions, helping Canadians save even more money and improve our local economies.
Again, putting a price on pollution is not the only action this government is taking to address climate change. As part of our climate plan, we are also regulating the oil and gas sector to reduce methane emissions by 40% to 45% by 2025, which will encourage companies to find cleaner, more efficient ways to run their operations.
We are phasing out the use of coal-fired electricity by 2030, as part of Canada's efforts to have 90% of electricity from non-emitting sources by 2030, while working with the affected families, communities and businesses to help them with the transition to a cleaner economy.
We are making a historic investment of $3 billion to spur innovation and bring clean technologies to market, such as funding to support technology to scrub carbon dioxide directly from the air, as well as $75 million to tackle challenges in clean technology.
We are developing net-zero energy ready building codes to be adopted by 2030 for new buildings, developing a model code to guide efficiency improvements for retrofitting existing buildings and establishing mandatory labelling to provide businesses and consumers with information on energy performance.
As we work to fight climate change, we know that Canadians are feeling the impacts of a changing climate. That is why we are taking action to help our communities adapt and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead.
I have only a few seconds left, so I will be happy to take questions.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is unanimous in the House that we all care about climate change. The challenge is the way that the current government is implementing things. It is causing challenges that no one foresaw. For example, the hospital in my community is Lakeridge in Oshawa. The estimate for the carbon tax, because there will be an increase in costs to heat its facilities, is going to be $278,000 in 2019-20. By 2022-23, it is going to be $700,000. Hospitals that are on a strict budget are going to see increased costs. It is the same with our schools. Educational facilities, municipal governments with municipal buildings, sports facilities and bus and transportation systems are going to be seeing increased costs, and there are no details on how that is going to be compensated for through the carbon tax program that the Liberals have instituted.
What does the member say to hospitals that are going to be faced with these unexpected increased budgetary costs in regard to the carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, the first observation I would make is that increased pollution will cause more people to use the hospitals, so the costs will go up anyway. However, there are many programs that the government is putting in place to help institutions transition into a cleaner economy and make that transition by changing the way they heat the hospitals, or by changing the way energy is used in hospitals, schools or businesses. That is part of the plan. It is not just a price on pollution; it is also all the other measures we are putting in place to help businesses transition into a greener economy.
Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberal government likes to see itself as a climate leader. However, we should all acknowledge the fact that climate leaders do not continue to subsidize big oil.
When will the government fully eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel industry?
Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry but I missed the last part of the question. I wish I could answer her, but I just did not hear the question. Could she ask it again?
Can the hon. member for Vancouver East repeat the last part of the question?
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to. I know the member was busy talking to the government House leader.
My question for the member is this. When will the Liberal government fully eliminate fossil fuel subsidies?
Mr. Speaker, it is part of the plan. It is definitely part of the transition we have been talking about. I do not have a date, but I absolutely can tell members it is part of the plan. It will eventually be something that we hope we will end in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking with the hon. member because I was commending her on her excellent speech and the work she has done. An area I feel she has not been able to share is about the programs we have when it comes to transitioning to a cleaner, greener economy. I am wondering if she could expand on some of the additional programs that will be available? We have quite an impressive comprehensive plan that we have put forward, because it is so important that the economy and the environment go together and that we ensure that future generations have a cleaner, greener economy they can count on.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I would like to expand on the many and various ways the government is preparing Canadians to transition from the current dependence on fossil fuels.
Beyond what I just mentioned is the supporting of alternatives. To go to my colleague's question about the hospital, there are alternatives to traditional ways of heating and powering homes and buildings, such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal technologies, as well as innovative ways to connect and transmit these sources of energy to help businesses save money on their energy needs.
There is the setting of new standards to improve energy efficiency of appliances and equipment, like clothes washers, refrigerators and dishwashers, to encourage innovation and save Canadians money. We are providing $1.1 billion in funding for energy efficiency in residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings, including support to improve efficiency in affordable housing developments.
These are part of the many measures, and there are more, that the government is putting in place to facilitate the transition to a better and greener economy.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise and speak to this motion, and I thank my hon. colleagues for their comments. I look forward to seeing the Conservative Party's environmental platform tomorrow, as I hope it will show that they have finally become serious about climate change. Given that members of that caucus still share the musings of climate change deniers on social media and howl for us to give up fighting for a better future because it is difficult, I will admit I am skeptical.
Conservatives have consistently ignored the science and the economics behind climate change, and I have seen nothing to indicate that they have changed their thinking. In 2006, the first year of the previous government's mandate, a report on the economics of climate change commissioned by the British government was released. It was led by the former chief economist of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern.
The Stern review concluded that inaction on climate change “could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.”
Stern stressed that governments needed to take action then, saying that the next 10 to 20 years would be critical in laying the foundations for combatting climate change. He also concluded that tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the long term. The U.K. listened and cut its emissions. Europe listened and cut its emissions. Both regions became leaders in combatting climate change.
What did the members opposite do? Did they retrofit our buildings and infrastructure? No. Did they commit to diversifying our economy to reduce our reliance on finite and environmentally unsustainable resources? No. Did they work with heavy industry to meaningfully reduce its emissions? No. Did they invest in new infrastructure, grow the green tech industry or expand protections for natural areas? No. Did they discuss climate change abroad? No. The members opposite ignored the data, ignored the science and stuck to a business-as-usual approach. They ignored the science and economics.
They ignored the economic growth and energy security that come from investing in green energy and technology. They ignored the massive costs that climate change would have, from disrupting trade and transportation to mass displacements and a global refugee crisis.
From 1983 to 2008, Canadian insurance companies paid out an average of $400 million per year for climate-related claims. The floods and fires this year alone will cost $1.8 billion. According to the Stern review, damages are projected to force 20% of global annual GDP to be spent on repairing, strengthening and replacing infrastructure. Notably, severe weather events like the floods, fires, and heat waves we have experienced in the past few years are only among the earliest symptoms; it will get worse.
Many of my colleagues opposite are quick to criticize any government investment made to make Canadians' lives better, insisting that it is an “unacceptable” debt to leave to our children. Neglecting our responsibility to take action on climate change is the unacceptable debt we leave to our children.
I have received many letters from men and women, parents and grandparents, adults and children. The text may vary, but the message is the same: to recognize the situation we are in, look at the extreme weather events we are experiencing and see the link between the two, study the science behind greenhouse gas emissions that cause our climate to change, and listen to our first nations, which have been saying for centuries that our planet's resources are not there to be recklessly exploited but must be used responsibly and sustainably. They implored me to act now, before it was too late, and I am proud of the fact that our government is doing just that.
Our government has committed to phasing out coal by 2030. We have invested over $2.3 billion to support clean technology. We have helped schools, hospitals, businesses and homes become more energy-efficient, and we are providing enhanced disaster mitigation and adaptation funding to help the victims of these natural disasters.
When we discuss these topics, many like to point to House Resolution 109, the recognition of a need for a green new deal proposed in the United States House of Representatives this February. It calls for building resiliency against climate change and reducing the risks posed by climate impacts. It insists upon the necessity of upgrading infrastructure, transportation and buildings to lower carbon emissions.
It calls for growing the green economy and putting in place a transition process that leaves no one behind, including those working in the fossil fuel sector; restoring natural ecosystems by protecting agricultural and rural lands; and supporting the clean tech industry here, and exporting our expertise abroad.
It is a pleasure for me to point out that many of the components of the green new deal have already been put in place by our government. We are continuing to invest in developing transition centres for workers in carbon-intensive industries, and we are working to diversify our economy across the country by creating good green jobs. This also means helping carbon-intensive industries like the oil and gas sector become more efficient and substantially reduce their emissions.
Our 10-year infrastructure plan is an unprecedented investment in public transit and green infrastructure, to which we have committed over $21 billion so far. We are making electric vehicles more affordable and more accessible, and we are committed to ensuring that all new vehicles are zero-emission by 2040.
We are going to get the rest of the way there, and we are committed to taking even stronger action to reduce pollution and invest in a cleaner future.
Pointedly, I have had the honour of being a seconder to the bill by my colleague from Beaches—East York, which would commit Canada to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. I believe that, as a nation, we can do it, while joining other nations, like Norway, New Zealand and the U.K., which are already taking this path. I also know that we need to do it.
Change cannot happen overnight. There is more to do, but we must do it responsibly and we must keep at it. We will not give up. Recognizing a national climate emergency affirms how seriously we are taking these issues.
One of the most important steps we are taking to lower our emissions in a responsible manner is the price on pollution. The PBO recognizes that the price on pollution not only puts more money in the pockets of Canadians, but it is the least expensive and most effective way to substantially lower our emissions.
We are not deaf to the very real concerns from Canadians regarding their future without action on climate. In Kitchener Centre, I watched with pride as young Canadians stood up to implore us to take action on these issues to ensure our collective future. Climate change affects every single Canadian: rich or poor, man or woman, adult or child. It affects us all. This is why we will not give up. Business as usual is not an option. The longer we wait, the steeper the cost will be.
I will continue to support policies to implement the changes that need to happen. We must protect our environment and end our reliance on fossil fuels so that we can grow the green economy of the future. We are stepping up now to ensure that it is not too late and that Canada can once again be a leader on this issue.
I encourage all my colleagues to have foresight on this issue and not just think until the next year or the next election. We must treat this issue not as a partisan issue to be won or lost, but as a human issue that we must work together to solve. We have to look beyond that.
The 26th president of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt, recognized that we need to think about our planet in the long term. After viewing the natural beauty of Yellowstone National Park, he said, “We are not building this country of ours for a day. It is to last through the ages.”
Let us strive to ensure that our country and our planet not only last but thrive through the ages.
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about helping the oil and gas industry reduce its emissions. Putting a carbon tax on small businesses is not going to help those people, but there is something that is. The member is probably well aware that in the Paris accord, three of the four recommendations on progressing were about using carbon capture and sequestration, which were talked about and signed off on. This innovation already exists in Canada. Not only does it exist in Canada, but it takes the emissions captured and puts them underground, which helps the enhanced oil recovery.
In fact, just the other week, Mr. Michal Kurtyka, from the Ministry of the Environment for Poland, stated, “Carbon capture and sequestration will be important to make an advance to carbon neutrality”. Mr. Pawel Leszczynski, the COP24 presidency bureau chief, was also there.
My question is very simple. Why are you not championing this?
I want to remind the hon. members to place their questions through the Chair.
The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to my speech, what I said is that the price on carbon and other approaches that we need to take have to be holistic. It cannot be one or the other, or one at the expense of the other. What we should be doing, as a society, is working together to try to manage a non-partisan way forward, but do it in such a way that, by 2050, at least, we will have a zero-emission, low-carbon economy in this country.
More importantly, I do not think that this should be a partisan issue. I do not think that this should be an issue where one is better than the other. I think there should be a collective approach, and this is what we have decided to do on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, we are waiting momentarily for the final decision from the government on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. Of course, we have been hearing from the community over and over again that climate leaders do not buy pipelines and that it should not be part of our climate emergency plan.
My question for the member is this. How does he reconcile the contradiction of buying a 65-year-old pipeline in the face of a climate emergency?
Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. It is very simple. The economy and the environment must go hand in hand. Both are important for the progress of our country. Both are important for the advancement of our society. To take one over the other is not a principled approach. The principled approach is to take both together, to make sure that the economy is functioning, not at the expense of the environment, and that the environment is respected, as it should be. There is no contradiction.