Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

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

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.

Hon. Michelle Rempel

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. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

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.

Hon. Michelle Rempel

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

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.

Hon. Michelle Rempel

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.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

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.

Hon. Michelle Rempel

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 Sara 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. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

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.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

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. Lloyd Longfield

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.

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

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?

Mr. Lloyd Longfield

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

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. Lloyd Longfield

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

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.

Along with these budgetary measures, we have legislative measures, such Bill C-48, the oil tanker ban; Bill C-69, the environmental assessment legislation; our fisheries in Bill C-68.

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. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

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. Kevin Lamoureux

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.

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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.