Bill C-57 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act

This enactment amends the Federal Sustainable Development Act to make decision making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

The government has had three years to do anything on any of these files, and it has done nothing except spend money and raise taxes, and now they have to account, because Canadians are tired of paying for the Prime Minister's mistakes and failed policies.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members again that when someone has the floor to be respectful. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had the opportunity to ask his question, and I would ask him to allow the person who has the floor to have the opportunity to respond without being interrupted.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power, much to their credit, they brought back the eco-energy retrofit program, which was a great program that actually gave money to families or small businesses to retrofit their buildings so they could save on their energy bills. In fact, when I was on the public works committee, I actually brought forward the idea of looking at how much taxpayer money could be saved if the federal government invested in a major way in energy efficiency. In the end, we had a fabulous report, by the way, from a majority Conservative committee.

The Conservatives brought in this plan. It was over-subscribed. People loved it, and the Conservatives killed it. Why did they kill it? They wanted to bring down their deficit before the election.

Does the member not believe that a good initiative for sustainable development is to support Canadian families so they can do their part too and reduce their energy costs through a home energy retrofit program?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the primary responsibilities we have in this place is to be wise stewards of taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately, that principle is sometimes lost on parties that are to the left of the Conservative Party of Canada. When we are in a deficit situation, we should be looking at ways to return the budget back to balance. This is something the Liberal government has no intention of doing. That is quite clear at this point in time.

When we look at the record, the words that I twigged into with my colleague's question were doing things to help Canadian families make ends meet. I look at some of the things that none of the other parties in this place support, like common sense tax initiatives like income-splitting, that allowed people to value the labour of people who might have lower income in a relationship.

I think about all of those measures that many Canadians used to get by that were cancelled, that were not supported by any other party in this place. I will give the member's party credit. I think her former leader probably would have governed to the right of the Prime Minister. However, that said, nobody else here ever talks about balanced budgets or deficit. To me, that is walking away from the principle that we have for managing taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively.

Sometimes we have to talk about the fact that we have to live within our means, even in government. I am very proud to say that our government left Canadians with a balanced budget, the lowest federal tax burden in over 50 years, and that is a good thing.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on pollution, what I like to call the Liberal carbon tax.

A two-year study in Quebec on the carbon exchange found that pricing pollution did not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any way. In fact, a slight increase was observed.

I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on the fact that the Liberals want to tax people when the Quebec experience shows that the outcome is completely uncertain.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that carbon in Canada is a good that is relatively inelastic. There is not a lot of substitute goods for it. Therefore, when the price of carbon is increased, we will not see a lot of behaviour changed, but we will see a restriction or a constriction on economic growth, as well as the ability of Canadians to make ends meet.

That is why this will not work, the $40 price on carbon. One of my colleagues from Quebec boldly said that they really wanted to increase this tax. The government has not been able to show at what price behaviour would change in Canada and it has not been able to show when the carbon tax it has introduced would actually meet the emissions targets.

That is why the carbon tax is such a fallacy and it is something the Liberal government should be walking away from.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak, whether in the chamber of our traditional House of Commons or the new chamber we are debating in today for the first time. When answering his first question, the Prime Minister commended all the individuals involved in making this transition possible and recognized the fine work and efforts that so many people have put in to realize the day that is finally upon us.

Having said that, I have listened to a few interesting speeches over the last number of hours on what is a very important principled piece of legislation. I would really encourage members of the Conservatives, as well as my New Democrat friends, to try to get a better understanding of what this legislation is all about. I have heard a wide range of debate. I will try to address the many different issues raised during the debate, but it covered a lot of territory, from taxation policy to immigration policy. There was a bit of stuff on the environment, as well as other issues.

I want to start by trying to express what many viewers might have been confused about with the previous speaker on what I believe is a very important issue, which is sustainability and the whole idea that when we move forward we need to look at sustainable development and establish those goals and objectives. When legislation empowers the right approach by the different stakeholders, the many different federal agencies that will all fall under this legislation, we need to recognize it as a positive piece of legislation, not only for the environment but also for Canada's economy.

I heard a great deal about Canada's economy and how it is performing. The Conservative opposition tries to give what I would argue is a false impression, as if the Canadian economy is not doing well. In fact, the numbers do not lie. The numbers are very much favourable over the last few years. We have seen progressive legislation brought in by this government. Some ideas have been generated from stakeholders, Paris and right through all regions of our country that understand the importance of the environment. We have been able to encapsulate the ideas that will push our economy forward, while at the same time recognize the importance of our environment.

I would suggest that the principle of working the environment and economy together is something this government understands. That is where I would like to start my comments on this legislation. We have the Conservatives, who are the official opposition, who tend to want to forget about the environment. They try to give the impression that the Harper government truly cared about the environment and had economic, legislative or budgetary policies to protect Canada's environment. In fact, not only did the former prime minister fail to meet the standards and expectations of Canadians with respect to the environment, the Conservatives did a poor job on the economy too.

When listening to the Conservatives talk about this legislation, whether today or back in November or December, one would think there has been no change and that Stephen Harper is still the leader of the Conservative opposition party.

It is interesting. Is it Stephen Harper? Some have made the suggestion today that it sounded more like Doug Ford was running the Conservative Party. Who is running the Conservative Party today? Is it Doug Ford? Is it Stephen Harper? Maybe it is Jason Kenney out in Alberta. Who is running the Conservative Party? When it comes to our environment, it is really difficult to tell.

The Conservative Party really has no plan. In one of the questions today, the Prime Minister said something like it has been 270 days and we are still waiting for that plan. Canadians deserve to see a plan. The Conservative Party has no plan.

I am going to talk about the Liberal plan very shortly, but before I do that, let me talk about my New Democrat friends. On the one hand, the Conservatives are very much focused on the economy. The environment really does not matter to them and they do not have a plan when it comes to the environment. My New Democrat friends, on the other hand, have a multitude of plans dealing with the environment. Everything is about the environment. Some would think they are trying to out-green the Green Party on environmental policies. They forget about the economy. It is hard to understand what the NDP's position is. After all, we have Jagmeet Singh saying one thing, while another prominent New Democrat is saying another thing. We have the NDP here in Ottawa saying one thing, while the NDP provincial governments are saying something completely different.

What about the LNG project? It is a multi-billion dollar project. Every Canadian in every region is directly or indirectly going to benefit from the LNG investment. Every Canadian will derive some direct or indirect benefit from this multi-billion dollar investment. The New Democrat government in British Columbia and the government here in Ottawa have recognized the value of that development. However, now we have Svend Robinson, the prominent New Democrat who wants to be back inside the House, saying that it is a bad idea, and even going further in terms of wanting to shut down any sort of development of our natural resources.

The NDP here in Ottawa is saying that pipelines and the exportation of oil is a bad thing. If we listen to New Democrats speak in the House, we hear that they do not want to see any new pipelines at all. That seems to be their line, yet the NDP government in Alberta is begging and pleading that we recognize the importance of the oil industry for all Canadians.

On the one hand we have the New Democrats, who are all over the place on the issue of the environment, with a multitude of different plans, but who are not listening and being sensitive to the needs of Canada's economy. Then we have the Conservatives on the other hand, who do not have the sensitivity and do not recognize the need to work with the many different stakeholders to consider the environment when developing our natural resources or commodities.

Let us use a very specific example. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, was prime minister for 10 years. How many pipelines did Stephen Harper actually construct or provide with the opportunity that would see those pipelines move forward, which would have taken our resources to Asian markets, to the coastline? The answer is zero, not one. There was not one inch of pipeline from the Conservative Party.

If we listen to the Alberta members of Parliament, we would think they were building four or five pipelines a year, as if they truly cared about them. However, for the 10 years they were in government, they did not build one inch of pipeline. Within months of this government taking office, it put into place—

[An hon. member]

That's not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is the truth. If we look at the first few months of this government, after being elected in 2015, we started to put into place a process that respected the environment, that ensured indigenous people would have a voice, that there would be a process that would allow for the expansion of getting our resources to market. The Conservative Harper government failed at doing this.

Why should we listen to the Conservatives when it comes to a pipeline when they failed so miserably on it? We do not need to be lectured by the Conservative members about the jobs in the province of Alberta. This is a government that cares about what is happening in all regions of our country, including my home province of Manitoba, the province of Alberta, the province of Quebec and all the different provinces in Atlantic Canada. We are concerned about all provinces and territories. We encourage economic growth wherever we can. We have been very successful.

Stephen Harper was the prime minister for 10 years and his government created somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over a million jobs. In the last three years and a few months, in working with small businesses and Canadians in all regions of the country, we have seen 800,000-plus new jobs created in Canada. In good part it has a lot to do with the budgetary announcements we have brought forward.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talked about the issue of taxation and how it had an impact on sustainability in Canada, referring to the Canadian economy. This government has done more to cultivate and encourage the growth of our economy. From day one, we have been a government focused on Canada's middle class and have taken policy initiatives that would enhance and give strength to the middle class. We understand and appreciate that the stronger and healthier Canada's middle class is, the healthier our economy will be, not to mention the many different social aspects.

The previous speaker talked about waste, the environment and how in Montreal a considerable amount of waste unfortunately had to be dumped into the St. Lawrence. There is a reason why it had to be dumped. Before I go into that reason, let me assure the members opposite that it is not the first time waste has been dropped into a waterway. Even under Stephen Harper, it was dropped into the waterways. What did Stephen Harper do to deal with that issue? It was unlike this government that has invested and made commitments of billions of dollars to build Canada's infrastructure.

By building our infrastructure, we are going to be in a better position in the future to prevent the dumping of sewage in any form into our waterways. That is a very difficult decision. However, to try to give an impression that this government caused it is somewhat disingenuous and misleading.

For the first time, we have a government in Canada that is committed to building the infrastructure of our country and recognizing that if we want to have sustainable development in the future, a part of that sustainable development is investing in our communities, our capital infrastructure. In the last few years, this government has invested millions of dollars in water treatment centres in different areas of our great nation, so not only do we talk about it, but this government has taken specific actions. Many of those actions can be found in the budgets that have been presented by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada.

Other initiatives like the one we are talking about today are brought in through ministers to make changes to legislation. The process in bringing in this legislation has involved a great deal of background work and consultation, from consultation the minister's staff conducted prior to introduction and first reading, to the debate process, to the committee proceedings and to third reading. Ultimately it went to the Senate, where we received more feedback, which some of my colleagues have commented on.

The legislation before us today is very positive. It is something all members should reflect on and support. Federal sustainable development strategy, objectives and reports are all positive things. Canadians expect government to look at ways in which we can encourage sustainable development in the future.

The legislation we are debating today is part of what we talked about in the last federal election. This is yet another piece of legislation that fulfills a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians and that the Liberal Party made to Canadians.

We recognize that there is always room to improve and ways in which we can do better. I want to pay attention to this issue, because the Conservatives in particular have raised the issue of the price on pollution. We have had so much direction not only from within Canada, but outside as well. Countries around the world have recognized the importance of assigning a price on carbon.

The first jurisdiction in Canada to move forward on this issue was in Alberta. It was the Progressive Conservative Party that moved in this direction. However, the Conservative Party in Ottawa still does not understand it. This is where the current leader falls behind Stephen Harper. Some of the people Stephen Harper had around him recognized the value of having a price on pollution, but not the current Conservative Party.

Patrick Brown was another individual who talked about the price on carbon. I am sure my colleagues remember that individual, who was a part of the Stephen Harper government. Even though the Conservative Party associates so closely with Stephen Harper and Doug Ford, it is reminiscent of the Conservative-Reform days. Maybe that is the direction they are trying to go.

I look forward to 2019 when we are going to be able to tell Canadians all the wonderful progressive measures that we have taken, everything from tax breaks to protecting our environment to enhancing social programs. There is so much more we would like to be able to do and maybe Canadians will allow us to continue.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed that member's speech, as humorous as it was.

In the Federal Sustainable Development Act there is a provision that deals with intergenerational equity, which effectively says the current generation will not steal from future generations. The current generation will not impose a burden on future generations in order to meet its present-day needs. Presumably by supporting this particular piece of legislation and the underlying legislation, that member supports intergenerational equity, yet his government is doing the very opposite, running huge deficits when it promised to run small deficits.

The Liberal government failed to deliver a balanced budget this year, in 2019, despite the Prime Minister's solemn promise. He is on record as saying he would balance the budget by 2019. He never did it. When the budget is not balanced and huge deficits are run, there will be huge debts in the future that future generations will have to pay as well as all of the interest on it that future generations will have to pay. The current generation is stealing from the future generation. How is that intergenerational equity?

How does the member square his government's appalling performance on the economy and on debt?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the Conservative government allowed for a huge infrastructure deficit and we need to look at the reality of the cost of that infrastructure deficit. As a result of the Harper government choosing not to invest in Canada's infrastructure, there are going to be long-term cost ramifications for future generations. That is one of the reasons why our government, months into taking office, made a commitment to Canada's infrastructure. We can go beyond that and talk about some of the social infrastructures, programs in particular.

While the Conservatives would give cheques to millionaires for their children, our Canada child benefit is giving millions of dollars to Canadians. In my riding of Winnipeg North alone, it is like $9 million a month to families that really need it. They are spending that money, which improves their disposable income.

I can justify the expenditures of this government. What I cannot justify is the lack of commitment that the Harper government had towards our infrastructure and that is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very long and very loud speech. He touched on a number of things but two of the most important to Canadians are the economy and the environment.

We all just returned from break and I want to share some of the feedback that I received from my constituents. I think many other members in the chamber have heard the same thing and some alarming facts.

Just last week it was reported that 46% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency. That does not sound like an economy that is working well for a lot of people. My hon. colleague talked about the middle class. I have not ever heard the Liberals talk about the working class. There are millions of Canadians in this country that are not doing well.

The member quoted the same figures that the Conservatives used to quote, those large macro numbers about how well Canada is doing compared to the G7. It reminds me of the phrase that when Bill Gates walks into a bar everybody is a millionaire, on average. That is not the reality here in this country. There are gaping holes between the wealthy and the poor and between the working class in this country.

I want for a moment to turn to the issue of the environment. Nobody is opposed to natural resources or the oil industry. People are concerned about climate change and carbon emissions. With the alarming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change telling us we have 11 years to make a 45% reduction over 2010 levels, we do not have time to waste. Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when we have to be reducing carbon emissions is something that many Canadians, me included, have a hard time understanding.

What does my hon. colleague have to say to those almost one in two Canadians who are $200 away from going bankrupt? What does he have to say to the younger generation that is concerned about—