Mr. Paul Manly (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, GP)

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.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota)

I want to remind hon. members to keep it as brief as possible. I notice there are still quite a number of petitions.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present petitions from people who live in my riding of Portage—Lisgar. These petitioners are asking that medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, etc., would have protection of freedom of conscience when they are administering health services.

Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP)

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.

Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

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.

Ms. Karine Trudel (Jonquière, NDP)

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.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

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. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

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.

Ms. Georgina Jolibois (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition led by the Elizabeth Fry Society about children in irregular situations.

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

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.

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

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.

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

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.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota)

Is that agreed?

Agreed.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota)

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?

Agreed.

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

moved:

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.

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. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

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?

Hon. Ed Fast

Mr. Speaker, actually, Mr. Harper does not support a carbon tax and I can tell the member why.