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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-57. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Motions in amendment

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-57 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-57 again. This bill, effectively, would amend the current Federal Sustainable Development Act. Members may recall that in a previous Parliament, it was John Baird and the Conservative Party that strongly supported the original legislation, brought forward under a private member's bill, to establish the Federal Sustainable Development Act. That act requires that all government decision-making be reviewed through an environmental, economic, and social lens in the appropriate balance. That is the rub: “in the appropriate balance”.

The bill before us today aims to make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent, first; more certain, second; and subject to greater accountability, third, especially within government. This bill would require more departments and agencies of government—in other words, additional departments and agencies—to contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy, bringing the total to more than 90 departments and agencies from the current 26. The bill would also require these departments and agencies to prepare specific strategies to ensure sustainability and to table progress reports on their implementation.

Bill C-57 would also increase from three to six the number of indigenous representatives sitting on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Government, of course, relies heavily on these advisory councils to provide it with strategic advice on the implementation of that legislation. The bill would expand the council's mandate and provide that representatives appointed to the council may be compensated for expenses. We just heard the Speaker mention that a motion was being tabled that addresses the issue of remuneration. It has been my party's position that although the members of this advisory council should be compensated and reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses such as travel and lodging, they should not be remunerated. This should not be a job they do, but their contribution to society in making sure that Canada has an effective sustainable development plan.

The act would be subject to a mandatory review every five years. It has already been studied at the environment committee, on which I sit, where the Conservative members strongly supported it, subject to the amendments that have been brought forward this morning. We strongly believe that any decision government makes should always be reviewed through the lens of sustainability and should ensure that social, environmental, and economic factors are in the appropriate balance. This act also supports a whole-of-government approach to sustainable development.

As I mentioned earlier, the challenge, the real rub, is finding the appropriate balance among those three: social, environmental, and economic considerations, especially the balance between the environment and the economy. Our friends in the Liberal Party are fond of saying that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, which is a nice platitude, but the implementation of that intent is a different matter altogether. We see major failures in the Liberal Party's efforts to implement sustainability in Canada. Despite the fact that the Liberals brought forward this legislation, which is supposed to strengthen sustainability in Canada, their performance reflects quite a different approach. It is one that pits Canadian against Canadian, province against province, and the federal government against province and territory. While in government, the Liberals have not found it as easy as it may seem to implement sustainability.

I will begin by highlighting the relationship among the provinces, the territories, and the federal government. Members may recall that the Prime Minister, when running for election in 2015, made a host of promises, most of which have been broken.

One promise the Prime Minister made, which is now broken, was to usher in a new era of co-operative federalism. Nobody understood exactly what he meant, but everybody took him at his word. They assumed he was a man of his word and had every intention of doing this. In fact, he then began to interpret sustainability as having one's cake and eating it too.

When the Prime Minister was in British Columbia, he would pretend he was the champion of the environment. He would talk about the oceans protection plan and how we have to move off fossil fuels. However, when the Prime Minister was in Alberta to appease the residents there, whose livelihoods depend on our oil and gas, our resource sector, he would claim he was the great champion of the energy sector, again wanting to have his cake and eat it too and trying to be all things to all people. Those of us who have been involved in business, who have had to pay salaries and make important decisions within our businesses, know that we cannot be all things to all people. Tough decisions have to be made that serve the greater interests of Canadians.

There was our Prime Minister travelling across the country and pretending to be all things to all people, and suddenly the Trans Mountain pipeline comes along. He tells our friends in Alberta that if they implement a massive carbon tax, Albertans will win the social licence to be able to build the Trans Mountain pipeline to get their crude oil to foreign markets, get their crude oil to tidewater, where ships can then take that oil to foreign markets where it will fetch the highest price.

Trusting the Prime Minister, the Government of Alberta moves ahead with this massive carbon tax, which is hurting Albertans right across that province. I know some of my colleagues will share the pain being suffered by Albertans.

Now the Trans Mountain pipeline wants to move forward. Kinder Morgan wants to start building that project, but British Columbia steps up and says it opposes a pipeline coming through British Columbia. Even though there is an existing one there and all we are doing is twinning it, British Columbia is opposed. Now we have a war between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, a fight between the provinces and the federal government, and there is an appalling lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister, who had made a promise that if Alberta implemented this heavy-handed carbon tax, at least it would get a social licence out of it. Now it turns out there is no social licence. In fact, there never will be a social licence.

Canadians have been misled by the Prime Minister, but it gets worse. We are talking about sustainability, finding the appropriate balance for our economic prosperity as a country, using our resources wisely, getting the maximum dollar for them, getting them to markets, and then a report comes out from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Actually, it emanates out of the Auditor General's office. In this report, dated March of 2018, we read that in Canada greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, which the government committed to reduce, are expected to be nearly 20% above target. This whole report from the commissioner is riddled with criticism of the government's performance on the environment file.

Then we have Bill C-69, which is the impact assessment act revisions, which were intended to shorten timelines and provide more predictability and certainty for approvals of resource projects and pipelines. In fact, we are now hearing from industry that these timelines are much longer than they were before and that there are many additional criteria that are going to make it even more difficult for resource projects to be approved in Canada. As a result, what we are finding is that on the economic side, we are losing out.

We have a Prime Minister who pretends he is the defender of our economy, but who in fact is completely pandering to the environmental movement and those who are on the extreme left.

I would suggest that this legislation, although it does reflect the consensus of the parties within this House, has not been implemented by the Liberals in their actions and in their legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the member is just wrong in his assertion.

In fact, what we have, for the first time in many years, is a Prime Minister who understands how important it is to work with stakeholders, whether it is indigenous people or other levels of government. The proof is in the pudding. We can talk about the environmental agreements between the provinces and Ottawa, the health care agreements between the provinces and Ottawa, or the CPP agreement that was achieved between Ottawa and the provinces. When we talk about working with the environment and the economy, it is the government that gets it and the opposition that does not quite understand.

As the member across the way tries to go on as if the Conservatives know what they are doing on the environment, can he clearly indicate to this House why the Conservatives seem to have only one approach when it comes to energy development, which is full steam ahead? The Conservatives do not necessarily negotiate or have discussions, or even seem to care about the environment. Why is that the case?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, it was under our previous Conservative government that greenhouse gas emissions actually went down for the first time in Canadian history. We were the only government under which that happened.

My colleague suggests that somehow the Liberal government has this wonderful relationship with stakeholders and a wonderful relationship with indigenous communities, while his relationship with the provinces and territories is completely falling apart. The government is in a fight with Saskatchewan on the carbon tax and in a fight with Alberta and British Columbia on the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

When it comes to indigenous communities, at our environment committee we just finalized voting on all the amendments to Bill C-69 that were brought forward, which I referenced earlier. Members may recall that the Prime Minister promised that he was going to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so members will be surprised to hear what happened at committee: our Liberal friends over here, every time someone brought forward an amendment to include UNDRIP within that legislation, voted against it on at least 25 occasions. They were speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

The Prime Minister is all over the country pretending he is one thing in one area and another when he is in a different region of the country. It is hypocrisy at its very worst.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Abbotsford just made a statement that the Conservatives were responsible for a decrease in emissions. What the Conservatives tend to overlook is that over 2008 and 2009, we had a worldwide recession. Would the member not agree that the corresponding decline in industrial output and activity was probably more responsible for the decrease in emissions than any Conservative policy could have hoped to have been?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we experienced unprecedented growth over the 10 years that we were in office. We led the G7 in economic growth. Let that be clear on the floor of this House. We had the best growth in the G7 countries.

We understood the appropriate balance between the economy and the environment. When I think of an NDP government, let us imagine what that would be like. It was a disaster in Ontario. The last one we had in British Columbia was an unmitigated disaster. Let us remember the fast ferry fiasco. It just went on and on. My colleague, unfortunately, is not qualified to comment on economic growth.

I can say that the previous Conservative government was the only one that has seen a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, while today's Liberal government here in Ottawa has been held responsible by the commissioner for failing to meet its targets. In fact, the United Nations itself has said that we are going to be somewhere in the order of 90 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions short of our targets under the Paris Agreement. This is a government of capital-F failure.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this discussion is actually supposed to be about the Federal Sustainable Development Act, but we would not know it from the speech or the responses from the member for Abbotsford.

The member for Abbotsford supported the bill at second reading and at committee and did not move a motion to amend the bill in this way, so why now? The member also moved an amendment at second reading to clarify remuneration of reasonable expenses, which the committee accepted, so why this amendment now? This is simply a delay tactic, trying to waste the time of the House by talking about things that have no bearing on a bill that the member supported. The amendments he moved at committee were accepted. This is just a waste of people's time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I'm sorry, but it was to be resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary was asking a question. I will not allow the member for Abbotsford to respond, but should the member wish to continue his speech, he can.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to address my colleagues in the House and to reaffirm our government’s commitment to sustainable development and future generations of Canadians.

Through Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the government is working to ensure that decision-making related to sustainable development is more transparent, is subject to accountability, and promotes coordination across the Government of Canada.

Let me begin by thanking all members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for their excellent work.

The committee’s hard work has led us to a stronger and more transparent bill, which builds on the government’s commitment to promote consultation and public engagement.

It is this last point that I would like to speak to today.

Worldwide we are seeing a resurgence of interest and desire to promote sustainable development and take action on climate change. By adopting the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, Canada will contribute to a global framework of action that strives for global sustainable development and aims to eradicate poverty and to leave no one behind.

Through its participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the historic Paris Agreement, Canada is also signalling a renewed global commitment to address climate change.

It is in this global context that we find ourselves, resolutely committed to ensuring that Canada is a sustainable development leader.

That is why we are proposing amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act that would propel us along a path to a sustainable future and ensure that we have the interests of future generations in mind.

The current federal sustainable development strategy is the strongest to date. It was developed using an inclusive participatory approach aimed at engaging and involving all Canadians. We released the draft strategy in February 2016 and asked Canadians to share with us their vision for a sustainable Canada and to suggest how we could strengthen transparency and accountability. The response was unprecedented. Canadians provided more than 540 written comments, 12 times the response received to the previous strategy. On social media they contributed about 900 posts and replies on the draft strategy. Overall, the draft strategy had a reach of more than 400,000 people over the course of the public consultation period.

We heard from individual Canadians who are fully committed and indicated that they are interested, engaged, and passionate about sustainable development.

We also heard from provincial governments, indigenous organizations, industry and professional associations, academics, and environmental non-governmental organizations. The strategy also benefited from the standing committee's review of the act and its recommendations. Evidence from the review included insightful testimony from witnesses such as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Hon. John Godfrey, the originator of the bill that became the act. We also spoke with the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, with representatives from each province and territory, as well as with members drawn from indigenous peoples, organizations representing business, organizations representing labour, and environmental non-governmental organizations.

In the public consultations, Canadians showed their support for the strategy, as well as for the 2030 agenda and other key sustainable development initiatives. They also appreciated the accessibility and transparency of the strategy, and the government's openness to receiving comments and input. However, Canadians also stressed that they are looking to the government for further progress and improvements, including greater inclusiveness to further guarantee the development of a strategy that engages all Canadians.

As a response, we felt we could go beyond improving the strategy, to improve the act itself. That is why, spurred by the standing committee's unanimous recommendations, our government introduced Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act already requires the government to engage Canadians through public consultations on the federal sustainable development strategy, including through the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. However, we wanted to further increase the effectiveness of our engagement activities, starting with improvements to the council itself.

Bill C-57 would position the council to be better able to advise the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on matters related to sustainable development referred to it by the minister. Expertise and advice from the council would be sought on the development of the draft federal sustainable development strategy before it goes to public consultation. The council could also be asked to review the draft FSDS progress report during its development and to provide suggestions on its form, content, and direction. Similar to the current practice of including a summary of the council's comments on the federal sustainable development strategy, a summary of advice could also be made public by including it either in the federal sustainable development strategy or in the progress report.

Our bill also proposes to double the number of indigenous representatives from three to six. The Minister of Environment would further reflect the diversity of Canadian society by taking into account demographic considerations such as age and gender when appointing representatives to the Sustainable Development Advisory Council.

In addition, we have removed previous restrictions that denied council members reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred by them in connection with the business of the council. The proposed amendment would remove the prohibition on reimbursement of Sustainable Development Advisory Council members, in order to enhance effective engagement and inclusiveness. This was framed and was a recommendation by the member for Abbotsford.

The current act does not allow council members to be remunerated or reimbursed for their expenses, because it was part of a private member's bill. What that has meant in practice is that the council has been convened only virtually and by teleconference to review draft federal sustainable development strategies, and that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has never met face to face with the council. Members are located in every province and territory from coast to coast to coast. Changing this would further help to minimize financial constraints on participants, particularly youth and members located in rural Canada. It would be unfortunate if individuals with a great deal to offer do not consider putting their name forward to be part of the council because they could not afford to participate.

Enabling the government to compensate or reimburse SDAC members would provide the ability for the council to play a more effective role in shaping the government's sustainable development approach. It would also enable the minister to engage with the council through in-person meetings or by bringing clusters of members together when appropriate.

We believe these changes would increase the ability of the council to guide and support our sustainable development agenda.

These proposed changes also reinforce the addition of numerous sustainable development principles. In addition to the basic principle and the precautionary principle, which are already included in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the bill adds principles of intergenerational equity, openness and transparency, the importance of involving aboriginal peoples, collaboration, and results and delivery.

Let me say a few words about these principles, which will guide the government's plans and actions on sustainable development. The principles emphasize that sustainable development is a continually evolving concept and allow the government to address new and emerging issues within future strategies. They also highlight approaches that the government should consider when developing sustainable development strategies.

In particular, the principle of intergenerational equity is the essence of sustainable development. It is the recognition that the decisions we make are not just about today but about tomorrow and far off into the future.

The polluter pays principle and the internalization of costs are also integral to sustainable development: that we must go beyond thinking of economic growth in conventional terms and stop seeing environmental damages as externalities.

The principle of openness and transparency supports the Federal Sustainable Development Act's stated purpose to make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament.

The Government of Canada is committed to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples through a renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-crown, and government-to-government relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. Our principle of involving indigenous peoples reflects this commitment, as well as their unique understanding of and connection to Canada's lands and waters, and the important role of traditional knowledge in supporting sustainable development.

Sustainable development requires contributions and actions from all parts of society: the public and private sectors and civil society. The principle of collaboration is about that joint pursuit of our common objectives.

The government has made it clear from its first day in office that we are committed to results and delivery.

Our principle on results and delivery emphasizes the importance of developing sound sustainable development objectives, associated strategies, indicators for measuring progress, and accountabilities. The Federal Sustainable Development Act must promote real change.

The proposed amendments to the principles are to be considered in the development of sustainable development strategies. Building more flexibility into the advisory council's role builds on these principles, particularly the principles of involving indigenous peoples, collaboration, and transparency and accountability, by providing an external perspective on sustainable development and ensuring that our federal sustainable development strategy reflects the diversity of Canada.

I hope that highlighting some of the major features of our bill would give members a better sense of how we can collectively move toward a more sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. I am sure this is something all members of the House fully support.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to probe the member's comments about the great work done on this bill at committee, with all due respect to those who are on the committee. The member may not know this, as I am not sure he was present during the marathon that took place at the environment committee. I was there subbing in. There was a programming motion at committee that prevented any debate on any of the amendments after nine o'clock, which meant that amendments were immediately voted up or down with no discussion, no explanation from the mover, and no debate.

Hundreds of amendments were proposed, many coming from the Liberal side, which suggests that maybe there were some issues with the bill that the Liberals had not thought through when they initially proposed it. More to the point, members were expected to vote on changes to an omnibus bill with no discussion or even explanation allowed whatsoever.

We owe it to Canadians to give them the best, most well-considered legislation we can. Simply as a matter of process, does the member think that this is an appropriate way for the committee, the one place where people are supposed to be experts and actually dig into the details, to be considering amendments? Does he think this is something the government would consider doing in the future with other omnibus bills it has?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member may be a bit confused. The discussion today is on Bill C-57, which is about the Federal Sustainable Development Act, and I think he is referring to a completely different bill. The amendment that was moved by one of his colleagues relates to Bill C-57, which is about the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I have to say that it is a bit disappointing to see the opposition trying to politicize a bill that we all support, on all sides of the House. One of the great disappointments for many of us who got into politics quite recently is how everything, even things we agree on, tends to end up in a partisan discussion inside this chamber. The hon. member who moved the motion and I have a very good relationship outside the House. However, I am always surprised at how narrowly partisan some of the things that I hear coming out of his mouth in the chamber are.

I am proud of the work that was done by the committee on this bill. I am proud of the bill itself. It is something that all parties in the House have indicated they support on a go-forward basis. In the spirit of the non-partisan way in which the committee worked, I would simply ask that we continue to talk about a bill that we all support and leave some of the partisanship aside.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, I have to correct the hon. member, whom I appreciate dialoguing with and enjoy working with. I think everybody in the House supports the idea that there should be sustainable development, but that does not necessarily mean that we think the act is as it should be. To be absolutely correct, yes, there was hard work done by the committee, but in fact the government chose to ignore the majority of the recommendations made by the first review of the committee.

When we reviewed the bill, one of the strong recommendations came from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. She supported a proposal that many of our witnesses heard, which is that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be specifically referenced in the bill. This was backed up by the justice minister, who said this last November:

With the direction and leadership of [the] Prime Minister...our government will support Bill C-262. The bill acknowledges the application of the UN declaration in Canada and calls for the alignment of the laws of Canada with the UN declaration.

However, here we have this environmental bill, and the government is refusing to incorporate UNDRIP. Could the member please explain why the government has refused to incorporate UNDRIP in the bill and respect indigenous rights?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member, and the committee has been a very thoughtful group that endeavours to work together in a non-partisan way.

The government did actually accept the vast majority of recommendations that came forward from the committee. Included in that were a range of principles that are being embedded in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as well as guides to the strategies that will be done by over 90 different agencies of the federal government, in place of 26, going forward. A number of measures that were included relate to the incorporation of indigenous participation in all of this, which is obviously a key priority of the government and something we will continue to ensure is reflected in all legislation we bring forward.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to this bill. It is very important that we strengthen sustainability legislation in this country. We have taken a few baby steps forward, but regrettably, this bill has not gone far enough. It is not enough for the government to simply say the word “indigenous”, say it cares about indigenous people, and then not take the step it promised, which is to actually incorporate that declaration into the law of the land.

It is important at the outset to recall that the Federal Sustainable Development Act was initiated in 2008 as a private member's bill with, frankly, much stronger measures. It was transformed by the then Liberal government into the law as it exists today. Second, it is important to recognize the earlier decision in 1995 to create of the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development within the Office of the Auditor General. A requirement was also imposed on departments to prepare and table sustainable development strategies. The commissioner was mandated to audit and publicly report on the government's delivery on these responsibilities. During the 1990s, a cabinet directive was also issued requiring ministers to provide an environmental assessment of any policies, plans, or proposals submitted to cabinet. As my colleague mentioned, that would include pipeline approvals.

In 2015, Canada joined other nations in signing a United Nations resolution, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. This agreement committed the signatories to take bold and transformative steps that are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. Two months later, Canada also committed, in Paris, to deeper actions to address climate change.

Finally, Canada has declared its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which I will refer to as the UNDRIP from now on, much of which deals with the indigenous right to self-determination, including on resource development, environmental protection, and sustainability.

Over the past decades, consecutive audits by the commissioner have reported abject failure by departments and ministers alike in incorporating credible environmental or sustainable development assessments for decision-making. It is similarly noteworthy that as recently as this past spring, after the tabling of Bill C-57, the commissioner delivered a highly critical audit on the government's commitment to implementing the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals, finding no federal governance structure, a narrow interpretation of sustainable development, limited national consultation and engagement, no national implementation plan, few national targets, and no system to measure, monitor, and report on national targets. It was a very scathing review.

It is important, then, in assessing Bill C-57, to determine if these proposed reforms to the act brought before us today are sufficient to update Canadian law to ensure delivery of our international and domestic commitment to ensuring sustainability.

A year before the bill was introduced, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development led a study of a draft federal sustainable development strategy, as required by law. The result was a series of recommendations presented to Parliament to strengthen this very law and the process of applying it. Last fall, the Minister of Environment tabled Bill C-57 to amend the act. The bill was debated and then referred back to the committee, which again undertook a study and reported back a number of recommended amendments. On behalf of my party, I proposed a series of recommended amendments, for the most part based on recommendations from the commissioner, experts heard at committee in both of its reviews, and the committee itself. Regrettably, almost all of them were refused, despite having been put forward by the committee itself in its earlier study.

Among my proposed amendments was that the bill provide specific reference to a commitment to the UNDRIP. Why did I propose this? The Prime Minister has committed to deliver on all 94 of the calls for action issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including calls 43 and 44, which call on the federal government, in fact all orders of government, to fully adopt and implement the UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation and to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve those goals. Clearly, one of those measures would be to include the UNDRIP in this law.

In her address to a conference on implementing the UN declaration, in November of last year, the Minister of Justice stated:

With the direction and leadership of [the Prime Minister], our government will support Bill C-262. The bill acknowledges the application of the UN declaration in Canada and calls for the alignment of the laws of Canada with the UN declaration.

It could not be clearer. This address was made to the Assembly of First Nations, and it interprets that as meaning that the UN declaration will now be incorporated into every federal law going forward.

The government has publicly stated its support for Bill C-262, tabled by my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which calls on the government to enact the UNDRIP in Canadian law.

This directive by the Prime Minister is clear: all Canadian laws must be written and applied to align with the UN declaration. The federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development recommended to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that it seek amendments to Bill C-57 to specifically include the UNDRIP. Again, it came from our federal commissioner.

Any reasonable person would conclude, therefore, that failing to reference the UNDRIP in the bill was just an oversight. Perhaps no one advised the minister that her Prime Minister, her justice minister, and the commissioner had recommended exactly this action. Therefore, it appears well-founded that I table this exact amendment. After all, the government's intent was clear.

What was the response by the majority Liberal-led committee? It voted down this amendment. One wonders, of course, why the Minister of Environment had not made this reference herself in the bill, but there we are: no support for inclusion of the UNDRIP in our nation's sustainable development law, which is supposed to guide all decisions on policy, programs, and law going forward.

There is no commitment to entrenching indigenous rights, but what about the other recommended measures to strengthen the bill? In testifying before the committee, the commissioner expressed appreciation that the minister had heeded the advice of the committee to incorporate into the law at least some of the recommended guiding principles, such as intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, and polluter pays. Other recommended principles, including environmental justice and the right to a healthy environment, were not included.

The commissioner expressed concern that additional international commitments critical to sustainability remain missing from the bill. These include, for logical reasons, the United Nations agenda 2030 on sustainable development goals and the Paris climate convention.

During its review in advance of Bill C-57, the standing committee sought advice from a number of leading Canadian and international experts on sustainable development on ways to strengthen the federal resolve to deliver on sustainable development. These included, as mentioned, the current commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, who was also the former commissioner. It also included Welsh and German experts on sustainable development, Global International, and the World Future Council. Clearly, the committee heard advice from a wide array of expertise on sustainable development.

A widely supported recommendation was to shift to a whole of government approach in instituting sustainability considerations in government decision-making by incorporating into law measures to improve enforceability and accountability on the sustainable development targets, appointing more senior-level authorities to provide oversight, and entrenching the cabinet directive in the statute. The minister chose not to follow this sage advice

These recommendations were repeated by the federal commissioner when testifying before the committee. She reiterated her call to shift the oversight role from a junior-level officer in the environment department to a central agency. It is no surprise why she came to this conclusion. As mentioned earlier, audits delivered over the past several decades reported abject failure across authorities, including the departments of environment and Public Safety, to comply with the law. Her fall 2017 report found a mere 20% compliance rate by the five departments audited.

As recently as this spring, the commissioner reported that the government has no federal government structure, a limited interpretation of sustainable development, and no system to measure or monitor sustainable development.

I would welcome questions and just share that I am deeply disappointed. This was an opportunity to strengthen the resolve of the federal government--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, time is up. Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

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

Madam Speaker, there is something in the legislation that many indigenous people would see as a strong positive, and that is that it would mandate representation on the development advisory committee, which would ensure that there would be a strong indigenous factor. When we think of ongoing development into the future, one would think that would be a strong positive.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on that aspect of the legislation, which is an important part, because the advisory council, in good part, would provide strong leadership going forward with respect to this legislation and beyond.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but to appoint indigenous representatives to an advisory council to ensure delivery of a bill, when the government refuses to incorporate and entrench its obligations under the UNDRIP, is a vacuous measure.

Of course, it is terrific that we are adding indigenous members to advise the government. This should be happening across the board, but the government is refusing in this legislation, and refusing in its omnibus environment bill, to specifically make the UNDRIP binding on the government. Indigenous members will be there, but they will not have a law to hold the government accountable.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Edmonton Strathcona for her tireless work on environment and climate issues.

I want to ask my colleague about the potential to find something positive in the bill.

I have been just appalled by the lack of advisory bodies for the Liberal government. Let me give a quick review. We used to have in Canada the Economic Council of Canada, which existed from 1963 until the 1990s. The Science Council of Canada existed from the 1960s until the early 1990s. The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council existed from the early 1970s to the early 1990s. All three were abolished in the early 1990s, because the government created the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We were told that we did not need the Economic Council, the Science Council, or the Environmental Advisory Council anymore, because we had the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which, in the spring of 2012, was killed in the Conservative omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38.

Nobody seems to be aware of the paucity of basic research and the combining of themes around sustainable development that we used to take for granted.

This is a pretty weak instrument we have in proposed subsection 8(1) of this legislation. We have a Sustainable Development Advisory Council, which I think has potential, but it has to be properly funded. The Liberal government needs to see the potential to replace all those bodies we used to have that gave us good advice.

I wonder if my friend from Edmonton Strathcona thinks that is something we should push ahead with in Bill C-57.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, what my colleague did not mention is that the Conservative government also got rid of the Law Reform Commission. I was advising it on environmental laws at the time the government struck it off, too. It would be nice to bring back all of those entities.

It is a vacuous opportunity to advise on a bill that is not a strong bill. It would be important that UNDRIP, the right to a clean, healthy environment, and the right to environmental justice be principles in the legislation and that UNDRIP be made binding. Those who sit on the advisory council could then hold the government's feet to the fire on the fact that it was not delivering on those binding obligations.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the most disappointing aspects of the government on the environment file is that when it came to power, it adopted the Stephen Harper climate change targets, and then the Prime Minister went to Paris and signed the Paris accord commitments. We are not on track as a country even to meet the weak targets the Stephen Harper government met, never mind the targets of the Paris accord, which obligates Canada to meet a 30% reduction over 2005.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on where Canada is at in terms of actually meeting Canada's climate change commitments, which, after all, are the basis for sustainable development.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is where the rubber hits the road. Sustainability means that we are actually delivering on all of the commitments we made, including on climate. As I mentioned, the government also failed to reference the Paris Agreement in this, which kind of tells us how committed the Liberals really are to it and that we cannot, therefore, hold them accountable.

We need to point out that the law says what the law says, but what the commissioner is saying clearly is that the government has failed abjectly over decades to deliver on its obligations to do an assessment of all programs, policies, and decisions, including decisions on major resource projects such as dams, pipelines, and mines.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about how our government's priorities and Bill C-57 align with the core principles underpinning the sustainable development goals and support the overarching philosophy of the 2030 agenda to leave no one behind. For Canada, leaving no one behind means that everyone can participate in, contribute to, and benefit from the achievement of the sustainable development goals.

The 2030 agenda is an informative agenda rooted in the principles of universality, inclusiveness, interconnectedness, and the need for meaningful partnerships that deliver positive change for all. It commits all countries irrespective of their income levels and development status to contribute to the comprehensive effort toward sustainable development.

As Canada's Prime Minister said in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2017, “the SDGs are as meaningful in Canada as they are everywhere else in the world”. The 2030 agenda seeks to benefit all people in need, in a manner that targets their specific needs and vulnerabilities. To do so, the 2030 agenda calls for inclusiveness and participation by all segments of society irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, and identity. This generates an unprecedented demand for diverse regional and local understanding of community-based issues and robust data.

For instance, we know that while drinking water in Canada is among the safest in the world, access to clean water and sanitation remains a challenge in on-reserve first nation communities. This is why clause 5 of the bill, which addresses the composition and mandate for the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, is so important. Clause 5 seeks to increase the number of indigenous representatives on the council to better reflect the indigenous groups represented and the broad range of challenges they face across Canada.

This directly supports our efforts to forge a new relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. Clause 5 also seeks to reflect the diversity of Canadian society by taking into account demographic considerations, such as age and gender, when appointing representatives to the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Gender equality and the empowerment of women, for example, are foundational pillars of Canada's leadership in the fight against climate change. We are enhancing our gender-based analysis across all areas of work on environment and climate change to ensure that our actions promote gender equality.

To further support diversity and inclusion in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, clause 5 provides that representatives appointed to the Sustainable Development Advisory Council may be reimbursed reasonable expenses incurred so they can meet as a council face to face. Council members would only be reimbursed for expenses incurred under the Treasury Board Secretariat travel directive. This directive applies to public service employees and other persons travelling on government business, and its purpose is supported by clause 5, which would ensure fair treatment of those required to travel on government business. The travel directive provides for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses necessarily incurred while travelling on government business, and does not constitute income or other compensation that would open the way for personal gain. The ability to meet face to face will enable more fair and effective engagement of the council.

The 2030 agenda rests on the interconnected nature of its goals. For example, ensuring access to clean water and sanitation supports the achievement of zero hunger and good health and well-being, by providing clean water to grow food and eliminating potential sources of disease.

To support the principles of interconnectedness, clause 5 provides that the Sustainable Development Advisory Council may advise the Minister of Environment on any matter related to sustainable development. Given that it was previously limited to reviewing the draft of the federal sustainable development strategy only, this will help to ensure that the core elements of sustainable development—social inclusion, economic growth, and environmental protection—can be further examined to ensure timely and meaningful advice to the minister.

All Canadians, including all levels of government, indigenous peoples, civil society, and the private sector, have a role to play in advancing the sustainable development goals and ensuring that no one is left behind.

In 2016, our government undertook an extensive consultation process to review our international assistance policy. Canadians showed strong support for the themes and issues addressed by the sustainable development goals. Canadians want to support the health and rights of women and children, to ensure peace and security, to provide clean economic growth and climate change, and protect governance, pluralism, diversity and human rights.

Responding to this consultation, Canada's feminist international assistance policy supports targeted investments, partnerships, innovation, and advocacy efforts with the greatest potential to close gender gaps and improve everyone's chances for success. As we implement the policy, we will strengthen our priorities through working in areas such as gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, human dignity, and growth that works for everyone.

Domestically, we have already begun to respond to the challenge of the 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals through the 2016-2019 federal sustainable development strategy, our plan to promote clean growth, ensure healthy ecosystems, and to build safe, secure, and sustainable communities over the next three years.

The strategy presents 13 aspirational goals that are a Canadian reflection of the SDGs of the 2030 agenda, with a focus on their environmental dimensions. Our goals are supported by medium-term targets, short-term milestones, and clear action plans. Currently, 41 federal departments and agencies contribute to meeting our targets and advancing our goals. Our strategy was shaped by input from stakeholders and Canadians, and it recognizes the important role that our partners and all Canadians play in achieving sustainable development.

Recognizing the complex nature of coordinating the SDGs, budget 2018 announced $49.4 million over 13 years to establish a sustainable development goals unit to provide overall policy coordination and to fund monitoring and reporting activities by Statistics Canada. To facilitate meaningful engagement, budget 2018 also provided up to $59.8 million over 13 years for programming to support the implementation of the sustainable development goals. This means the development of an ambitious, whole-of-Canada national strategy, in consultation with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, municipalities, universities, and civil society, to catalyze action across the country, build public awareness, and foster new partnerships and networks in advancing the sustainable development goals.

Many Canadian priorities, such as taking on climate change, clean energy, and oceans, growing and strengthening Canada's middle class, reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and advancing gender equality, already support the 2030 agenda. However, we know there is more work to do to ensure that no one is left behind. Canada's efforts to implement the 2030 agenda to date will be showcased this July at the UN high level political forum on sustainable development in New York, where we will present our first voluntary national review. Canada's voluntary national review will highlight our efforts and achievements to date, recognizing areas where more work is needed.

In conclusion, the sustainable development goals can only be achieved if everyone is on board. This is a Canadian agenda, a shared agenda, and an agenda that calls for all hands on deck. We strongly believe that Bill C-57 is in lockstep with our commitment to a more sustainable and prosperous future for all.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but find some of them a little ironic. He talks repeatedly about drinking water, clean water and sanitation, clean energy, and clean oceans, and yet the environment minister, shortly after she was appointed in November of 2015, authorized the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River, and just this February, another 43 million litres of raw sewage from Quebec City. How can the member stand in the House and talk about the commitment of the government to environmental cleanliness, especially when it relates to water, when these kinds of issues are ongoing in our country.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question is about something that is completely unrelated to the bill. Nonetheless, I will take a stab at trying to answer it.

When the minister has to make these extremely difficult decisions that no one wants to get involved in, she has to work with the infrastructure that has been built in the country today. She is working with the infrastructure that the previous government had been supporting.

The approach the member is taking is extremely short-sighted. Most Canadians, I am sure, are aware that our government is focused squarely on making sure that all first nation reserves have access to clean, safe drinking water. It is a commitment we made during the election, and it is something we are starting to see being delivered. Perhaps that is why the Conservative member is concerned, because we are able to deliver on something that they, quite frankly, could not.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank—

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That is just about the only commitment you will be able to deliver on, that and pot. It is very interesting.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. member knows full well that she is not to speak when someone else has the floor, but it seems she needs a reminder.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the concerns remain and, indeed, have been raised by the Liberals' very own Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development .

She made some strong recommendations backed up by global organizations that deal with sustainable development and a number of world experts. Their recommendations were based on Canada's abject failure, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, over the decades to deliver on what it has promised to do, and not just under this law but under a cabinet directive that was issued in 1995.

The strong recommendation was that instead of having a low-level official buried within the Department of Environment providing the oversight, to appoint a senior central authority so that all ministries deliver on these commitments. Why has the minister not delivered on this, but is leaving to a junior official the responsibility to tell the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Defence, the Department of Natural Resources that they should start delivering on their legal obligations?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sat on the environment committee with the member for a couple of years, and I know she is extremely passionate about this. I heard her in debate during that time as well.

The gist of my comments was about the advisory council, not only the shift to add more diverse representation to it but also the manner in which it members will be able to conduct themselves. Previously the advisory council was only allowed to talk about and critique the act specifically, and now it is being asked to give recommendations and advice to the minister, which I think is completely different from before.

There is a degree of strengthening the power of the advisory council and how it will be able to enforce, and make suggestions and recommendations to the minister.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister has talked about the importance of actually looking at and reviewing the act on an ongoing basis.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on how important it is that this not be a static thing and that when we talk about sustainable development, we should continue to engage Canadians?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the core principle underpinning sustainability, keeping the act in a sustainable fashion by continually going back to it, looking at it, and re-examining it to see how it can be changed.

This is definitely the right approach, and I am proud to be part of a government that is choosing to move forward on it.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate today. For people who are watching on TV or following the debate in the galleries, Bill C-57 is one of those pieces of legislation that would be in many ways be viewed more as a process piece of legislation. It is not so much about a particular policy; it is about how to set up the particular processes, the mechanisms, the various government reports, etc. to come to a particular policy. Therefore, it is often fairly difficult to explain for people who do not live, breathe, and inhabit Parliament Hill why legislation needs to exist. However, we need certain processes and mechanisms to accomplish legislative aims.

What is fundamental about this bill is that it would expand the number of people who would be involved and the number of departments that would have to report. While that is all fairly interesting and probably useful in the long term, and may or may not have positive outcomes, I think the underlying question most Canadians want to ask is whether all these processes actually make for a better environment, do they get Canada where it wants to go. A process is only as useful as its end result.

Therefore, this is in many ways a difficult bill to comment about because we really do not know what the end result of all these changes to process will be.

What I will contribute to today's debate is to make some suggestions based upon the history and knowledge of what actually works in environmental policy, so when these processes come to fruition, the people who are involved in it will have some idea of what the various parliamentarians thought about what would be good input to have to create proper legislation in the future.

Again, to some degree, we are buying a pig in a poke today because the bill would create more fees and funding for people who would be on the advisory committees. It would require more departments to have more reports. Maybe that is good, maybe it is not, but as far as what the substance is to make the environment better, we really will not know based upon this legislation.

Let me give some advice for the House as to what has worked in history to make better, more proper, more positive environmental legislation.

For all the talk we have nowadays from the Liberal government about what works or what does not, the Liberals have not looked at the broader scope of world history to see what has fundamentally made our environment better. I know this may get some challenges from some parts of the House, but one of the things that has been most useful and successful as far as making the environment better has been the rise of capitalism and free enterprise.

Around the world, the countries that were the first and earliest to embrace capitalism and free enterprise now have the best environment. They may be drifting away from the free enterprise system, but systematically this is one of those things that cannot be disputed from history.

In places like Europe, which was having massive problems with deforestation, the Europeans brought in coal technology. The market brought it in to replace wood for energy. They began to use things like the market mechanisms to move food around the world. Ships that were run by oil, diesel, fuels, and coal were able to take food from parts of the world, such as North America, Europe, and various other places, and move it around.

How did that help the environment? Very simply, instead of local areas having to use their marginal resources to produce food, they were able to bring it from different parts of the world by using market mechanisms.

Technology has also helped to improve the environment. One of the ironies of the expanding debate around fracking and tight shale and different things about that, is these technologies have helped to create a greater supply of natural gas, lowering the price for natural gas which then replaces coal. I am no critic of the coal industry, but natural gas, when it is used for electricity, produces less greenhouse gases than coal.

Here is the irony. Petroleum engineers, through free enterprise, have done more to cut greenhouse gases than all the government regulations proposed by the various left-wing regimes around the world. If we look at the other place in the world, where there were major cuts to greenhouse gases, it was after the collapse of the Soviet Communist bloc in Eastern Europe. They got rid of the heavy industry that was subsidized by the socialist-communist regimes of Eastern Europe. That was why the European Union was able to claim such massive credits. However, the irony of it all, for all the talk about regulation and taxation that the Liberal government puts forward, is that free enterprise and capitalism have actually done more for the environment than anything else. This is not surprising when we look at what people take responsibility for. They take responsibility for their own actions and their own property.

I used to live in the former Soviet Union for a short while as it was transitioning to becoming the various republics and independent nations it is now. I could see, as was to be expected, that people had environmental respect of their own property. However, for the broader collectively owned property, they did not. Free enterprise, responsibility, and all those basic things work to help protect the environment.

If we look at what the current government is doing, it has not been following those historical patterns. It has not looked at what broadly works to integrate with human nature to do it. Its ultimate policy is to do things like Bill C-57, which is about process, more talking, more reports, and more people being appointed to more committees to get more per diems and more payments, and so forth. Unfortunately that all tends to lead to more taxes and more regulation. The whole drive of the Liberal Party's environmental policy is to tax more and more.

What do people naturally do when they are taxed more? They do not necessarily change their behaviour in regard to the environment. They would if it were their own property and they needed to preserve and protect it. They do what people naturally should do. They try to avoid these carbon taxes.

I worked with the Saskatchewan Mining Association, which has been trying to communicate with the Minister of Environment, and not all that successfully I might add. However, it is very clear that it wants to work and do the best job it can for the environment. However, if the government overtaxes it with carbon taxes and regulations that have no basis in reality, its investment will move. Therefore, we do not actually clean up the environment. We do not actually have a better environmental outcome. What we do when we put on these carbon taxes and other regulations that are unnecessary for environmental improvement is that we move the industrial activity, hurt the Canadian economy, and do nothing to improve the environment.

If we tax electric plants in Canada that are generated by coal and we tax them so they move from Saskatchewan to North Dakota, all we have done is kill economic activity in Canada and moved it to the United States. We have not done anything to improve the environment.

This is what I encourage the government to do today. Process legislation is fine. Bills such as Bill C-57 could, if the process is actually implemented, do something positive.

Here is my challenge to other members of the House. When we look to support legislation, such as the bill before us, look to see what the historical record shows has been done to improve the environment. It has not been taxes, big government, or big government regulations. It has been people taking their own initiative under a free market, free enterprise systems, doing what they can with private property rights to improve it. That is what the historical record has shown and that is what we can expect to see in the future.

Again, a policy of big taxes, more regulation, and more government interference and bureaucracy will not improve the environment.

I realize I will not have convinced all of my hon. colleagues in the House, but I hope they are willing to enter into a discussion on what fundamentally will help improve the Canadian environment.

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

Madam Speaker, 10 years ago, the Province of Alberta came up with the specified gas emitters regulation. In essence, it was putting a price on pollution. By the way, it was a Progressive Conservative government that came up with the initiative. It led the country and North America. It was the first jurisdiction to say that we needed to have a price on pollution.

That seemed to be okay with the Province of Alberta 10 years ago. Alberta's economy, despite the ups and downs of the price of oil, has done relatively well. The last few years has been a bit of a challenge, but the people of Alberta are rebounding because of the price of oil. However, I would argue that the Progressive Conservative price on pollution 10 years ago has not hampered Alberta's economic performance.

Does the member across the way believe that the Conservative government back then was wrong to put a price on pollution?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would have not put the price on emissions that the then Progressive Conservative government in Alberta did.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, sometimes when we are holding up competing models, we tend to fall in the trap of going either one way or the other. I think most Canadians want a bit of both. We can have totally free unbridled to market capitalism or the extremes of communism.

However, I think most Canadians agree that we want to allow small businesses and industries the freedom to go out and employ people, to make profits, and so on. Also, I think Canadians want to ensure there is a clear set of rules so everyone is playing equally. I know that is the case for many small business owners, who I count as friends and supporters. They want regulations to ensure a level playing field.

When it comes to environmental sustainability and looking after pollution, there are numerous examples in the corporate world where corporate boards have chosen to maximize profit. If, in some cases, that means polluting the environment, they have gone down that route.

I hope the member appreciates that we have to meet each other halfway in order to make the system work, where people have that freedom, but also there is a level playing field with a clear set of rules that applies equally to everyone.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks, but I will point this out. It is often big business that has the least difficulty dealing with these government regulations. They have the resources. They have the lawyers. They have the capital. In fact, sometimes we can see big business supporting government regulation because it will be a more onerous burden on their smaller competitors and therefore allow for a more monopolistic market.

It is often the small businesses, the individual proprietors, people like them who suffer the most. Someone such as myself, who came from the mining industry and worked with the junior mining companies, I know they were often the ones that had the biggest difficulty meeting the regulatory burdens that the government put into place. The big players have the resources. It is often the little guy who suffers the most when these sort of regulations are put into play.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government makes the assertion that its carbon tax policy is aimed at addressing admissions, yet it is a policy that by its very structure can have no emissions targets embedded in it. The Liberals have their emissions targets on the one hand and their carbon tax policy on the other hand. However, imposing a tax does not give one any sense of a specific target embedded in that policy. Very clearly, this is about raising revenue for the government.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is fairly clear that the Liberals have a large deficit. They need to find extra revenue. They are trying to put together a moral rationalization for them to raise extra revenues due to their excessive spending. The carbon tax is about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I can assure members, particularly the member who asked the question, that this is not the case. There is an expectation, and unlike the Conservative Party, we, as a political entity, believe it is important to listen to Canadians. Quite often the Conservatives are completely out of touch with what Canadians believe are important issues, but we, as a government, are responding to what Canadians expect of good government.

Today we have before us legislation that deals with sustainable development, and believe it or not, Canadians support sustainable development. That is why we believe they would support this legislation. It is encouraging, I must say, that we appear to have support from all members of the House. All members are speaking in favour of the legislation itself, and it would have been nice to be debating this particular piece of legislation at third reading.

I question why the member for Abbotsford brought forward an amendment. I would ask my colleagues to reflect on this. A standing committee reviewed the bill. This particular amendment would get rid of the advisory council. When the member for Abbotsford stood to give his explanation, what did he say? He said he wanted clarification that no one on the advisory council would get remuneration. That is what the member for Abbotsford was hoping to get all members of the House to appreciate and understand. He was, therefore, suggesting that this clause be deleted. By deleting this clause, we would get rid of the advisory council. The advisory council is something I understand every member of this House supports, and yet he wants us to get rid of it.

To further complicate it, the member for Abbotsford, who was at committee, proposed an amendment at committee stage. Get this: the Conservative Party, through the member for Abbotsford, moved an amendment providing clarification that members of the advisory council would have their expenses covered. If they have to fly to Ottawa, their plane tickets would be paid for. He suggested an amendment that in essence supported the advisory council. It is no surprise that it was accepted. It was not only the government that supported that amendment; New Democrats did too. Now the member for Abbotsford wants to delete it. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, the Conservative Party is moving an amendment for the sake of moving an amendment. Conservatives say they support sustainable development and the legislation, yet they move an amendment that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

What would have happened had the member for Abbotsford not moved the amendment? It would have meant that today we would be debating the bill at third reading. Instead of talking about an amendment that should never have happened, we would be talking about the important issue of sustainable development. That is why, with the remaining time, I would like to talk about the importance of that issue.

There has been a great deal of work on this legislation. The draft strategy was put together and presented to Canadians in different forums. There were hundreds of submissions from different stakeholders and individual Canadians who had the opportunity to express their thoughts, priorities, and ideas on important legislation. It was very much appreciated and welcomed. The minister responsible and the staff did a fantastic job in reaching out beyond the Ottawa circle.

However, we also had a standing committee, which came up with ideas, recommendations, and reflections on what could be done to give more strength to the legislation itself. We had a standing committee, and the parliamentary secretary made reference to it when he said that we had all parties build a consensus to move forward on the issue of sustainable development and what that should look like in the form of an act. We actually had Conservatives, New Democrats, and Greens working together with government to try to improve legislation. Personally, I think Canadians would have loved to have seen that. Canadians can be assured that there was a high sense of co-operation from all sides of this House. The minister and the parliamentary secretary did a fantastic job in putting together legislation that we could all get behind and support.

It goes to second reading, and again it receives a favourable response. It goes to committee, and once again amendments were suggested and brought forward. The amendments—not all, but in good part—were supported, and some were incorporated into the legislation itself.

I can appreciate that things can always be made better. The Prime Minister of Canada often talks about how we can improve and make things better. We are genuinely open. That is one of the reasons that in the legislation there is the reference to the need for an ongoing review over five years. For sustainable development, all sorts of ideas could be generated in the meantime, so we want to ensure that the dialogue, discussion, and debate do not end the day this bill receives royal assent. It is actually incorporated in the legislation itself.

My NDP friends often say “what about this?” or “what about that?”. They are very quick to be critical of government. Sometimes it is constructive and sometimes it is more of a filibuster. I believe that for the most part, on this legislation, their attempts were meant to be constructive. We appreciate that.

In the case of indigenous issues, it is about working with indigenous peoples so that projects can move forward with some sort of consensus-building with different stakeholders. In this legislation, we are saying we have this fantastic Sustainable Development Advisory Council, and within that council indigenous representation will be guaranteed. That is very positive.

It is in keeping with what the Prime Minister said we need to do: not only re-establishing but supporting and enhancing that relationship between indigenous people, the Government of Canada, and Canadians as a whole. This legislation makes a genuine attempt to do that, at least in part, in a small way that still counts, that still matters and is significant.

This is something we see as a very strong positive. Imagine more transparency through engaging additional departments and agencies by the dozen. We are going to have more accountability and transparency through other departments and agencies with the passage of this legislation. Again, we see that as a positive thing.

Let me conclude my remarks by commenting that I believe the constituency I represent believes it is important to see both economic action and action on the environment too. In fact, sustainable development is all about ensuring that the economy and the environment work hand in hand. That is something we have consistently said, not only prior to the election but after the election as well.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the bill talks about extensively is sustainable development. The part about being sustainable is that whatever process is happening could continue into infinity, essentially. If it is a sustainable practice, it can continue.

I wonder if the hon. member feels that the current practice of his government in terms of deficit spending is sustainable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I did not quite expect an issue related to the budget as a question, but let me attempt to answer it. The member has the right to ask the question, and I would be more than happy to answer that particular question.

When we talk about deficits, I would suggest to my friend that we need to look at it from a historical perspective also. When Paul Martin was prime minister, he left office with a multi-billion-dollar surplus. That multi-billion-dollar surplus was converted into a multi-billion-dollar deficit under Stephen Harper, even before the recession had taken place. Stephen Harper, at the end of the day, added in excess of $150 billion to the national deficit. Then, in the last election, during the campaign, we talked about investing in Canadians, investing in new infrastructure, and assisting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to join it. We are fulfilling that commitment.

However, what we will not do, I hope, is follow the advice from Conservatives with respect to deficits, because every time they have had the opportunity to govern the country, they have had deficits, especially under Stephen Harper.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague really hit the nail on the head about halfway through his speech when he started to talk about the motive behind this particular amendment.

I sat on the environment committee when we discussed this particular strategy and when the strategy was going through committee, and he is absolutely correct that it was the member for Abbotsford who brought forward this section of the legislation, for which he has now put forward an amendment in the House to delete. We took the time to discuss his amendment in committee. We voted on it. We treated it in good faith. Then the bill comes to this place, and now the same member who put forward the motion, the member for Abbotsford, the Conservative, is asking us to remove it.

I do not want to be overly cynical, but what could possibly be the motive? I would be curious to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in 20-plus years as a parliamentarian, I have seen all sorts of amendments and parliamentary tactics and so forth. If I reflect on the amendment that is being proposed for this legislation, it makes absolutely no sense at all. The only thing that is possible is that it is an attempt to try to slow down the passage of the legislation.

The Conservatives tell Canadians that they support the legislation. On the one hand they say they support the legislation, but then they bring in an amendment that makes absolutely no sense. It is meant to do only one thing, to slow down the process, to filibuster, yet they say they support the legislation. It is a tactic that is often used toward the end of a session, but usually with legislation that is opposed, not supported.

If the Conservatives are going to move an amendment, they should at least do some homework on it. They should understand how they are amending the legislation. If members in the Conservative Party really reflect on the amendment, my recommendation would be to not support what the member for Abbotsford has put forward. It will be interesting to watch the vote, because if their vote is to prevail, there would be no advisory council. A lot of the fine work the member for Abbotsford did in the committee stage would be reversed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to take part in debates in the House, especially on this issue. It is also always a pleasure to follow my colleague from Winnipeg North and his prose.

I can assure all members, and especially the member for Winnipeg North, that I will support the member for Abbotsford, because I know that he is on the right side. Based on his experience as a senior cabinet minister under our government, I know that he achieved great things for Canadians. I am sure he is on the right track.

We are gathered here today to discuss Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I will remind the House that this bill seeks to enhance, improve, change, and amend the initial bill, which had been adopted, tabled, and debated in 2008 by our government, under the guidance of the Hon. John Baird, then minister of the environment.

Various elements are addressed in this bill, but it is essentially about the environment. The speech I am going to make today is about the Liberal government's achievements and track record, considered against the commitments it made and the legacy we left behind from our time in government.

Let us look at the facts. In its electoral platform, the Liberal Party made numerous references to the environment scattered over more than 10 pages. Page 39 said that the Liberal government would “take action on climate change, put a price on carbon, and reduce carbon pollution.”

There are three assertions there: take action on climate change, put a price on carbon, and reduce carbon pollution. The first is debatable. The second is a promise that the Liberals did keep. The third is one they did not. That is the reality.

It is not the Conservatives who are saying so, but a neutral and objective authority, the Auditor General, who analyzed every step this government has taken in the past 31 months with regard to the environment.

The Auditor General reached three fundamental conclusions in his report to Parliament on the environment and sustainable development. Let us look at what he had to say in that report.

First, the Auditor General found that the Liberal government failed to reach the targets set when the Paris Agreement was signed. Second, he found that there has not been any improvements with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. Third, he found that the federal government is not providing the proper and necessary leadership to fight climate change with the support and co-operation of the provinces. The environment is a federal-provincial joint responsibility and we need to work with the provinces.

The Auditor General found that the government failed in these three key areas, which are meeting targets, making progress, and providing leadership while working together with the provinces. The Auditor General said that.

This could undermine the efforts that must be made and the realities to which Canadians are accustomed when it comes time to take action on greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, the Liberal strategy was quite simple. They would impose a Liberal carbon tax on all Canadians. Let us remember that the Prime Minister famously said in this place that the Liberals would work with the provinces and invited them to implement a carbon tax or participate in a carbon exchange.

At first, this makes sense. However, we should not overlook what else was said, namely that if the provinces did not agree, a carbon tax would be imposed on them.

That does not really show leadership. That is forcing the provinces to do what they are told, or it will be rammed down their throats.

That is the approach of a Liberal government that came to power by saying that it would work with the provinces. If they do not co-operate, the government will force them to do what it wants. We do not believe that this is the right approach.

We should remember that this government has a study in hand that indicates what the impact of the Liberal carbon tax will be on Canadian families, a report that is not available to Canadians. We submitted an access to information request, which we now have in hand.

I will quote this study, which spells out the cost to families of the Liberal carbon tax:

...the potential impact of a carbon price on households' consumption expenditures across the income distribution. The key findings are:

The rest is blacked out. All of the information has been redacted. When people are ashamed of their numbers, they hide them. When they are proud of their numbers, they make them public. In this case, not only are they not making the numbers public, but they are also hiding them. Apparently they do not want Canadians to know how the proposed Liberal carbon tax will impact them directly.

In our view, the Liberals are out of line. Let me remind the House that if the provinces happen to want to introduce carbon taxes and if they happen to want to introduce their own carbon exchanges, that is their choice. I have first-hand experience with that. In 2011, I represented Chauveau in the National Assembly. There was a debate on whether Quebec should join the carbon exchange. Some people were in favour of it and others were against it. The political party I led at the time was against it. There was a proper debate. There was a debate and a vote, and Quebec has had a carbon exchange ever since. I was against it then, and I still am. People got to pass judgment on my stance three times, and I was elected three times with a clear majority each time. I was perfectly fine with that.

Just because someone is against the carbon tax and the carbon exchange does not mean that they are against the environment, on the contrary. People are smart enough to differentiate between the Liberals' partisan position and the facts.

The facts might surprise some because the propaganda we keep hearing about how the Conservatives were against the environment, did nothing for the environment, and are the enemies of the environment is completely false and not backed by facts. We hear this propaganda far too often.

Our government started by implementing a green plan, Canada EcoTrust, a $1.5-billion program, with the support and co-operation of the provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a scientific, tangible, and practical way. Hon. members will recall that in February 2007, the Charest provincial government and the federal Conservative government agreed to invest $349.9 million to fight climate change. That was done with the help of technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it worked.

Those who claim the Conservative government did nothing are lying to Canadians. We worked in collaboration with the provinces, as well as private companies. I am in the best position to talk about it because there is a high-tech environmental firm in my riding called CO2 Solutions. For over 10 years, it has been working with Natural Resources Canada to shrink the Alberta oil industry's environmental footprint. Its methods are working. I am very proud of this company from my riding, because we believe that putting the ingenuity of private enterprise at the service of greenhouse gas reduction efforts is a promising approach.

Our government's track record therefore boasts a 2.2% decrease in greenhouse gases and a 16.9% increase in GDP. That is the perfect combination: tackling greenhouse gas emissions and growing Canada's economy.

Others will say that this is not true at all. I say that it is true. Public television viewers may have been a bit surprised last week when I answered an incisive question directly with that statistic. To silence the skeptics, I quickly put the information online, and I am pleased to repeat that statistic. The information comes from Natural Resources Canada:

Between 2005 and 2015, Canada's GHG emissions in the energy sector decreased 2.2% while real GDP grew by 16.9%.

That is the reality. Those are the facts. That is the Conservative track record. We had a real policy coupling economic prosperity with greenhouse gas reduction, unlike this government, which is not even capable of meeting its own targets, which incidentally are the targets that we set when we were in government and that were subsequently adopted by the Liberal government, President Obama, and the entire planet in the Paris Agreement.

That is the Conservative track record, and we are very proud of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Progressive Conservative party in the Province of Alberta was in power, it was the very first government in North America to bring in a price on pollution, and my colleague and friend, who articulates quite well, commented on the Province of Quebec and how it had a debate on carbon pricing in its legislature. We know that the Province of Ontario and the Province of British Columbia have a price on pollution. However, we also know that at times there is an important role for the national government to play, whether it be going to Paris and having discussions there and then meeting with the provinces in Vancouver, where there was a discussion and the feeling that we need to have a national system with price on pollution.

Does my colleague across the way not agree that at times and in certain sections we need to have strong national leadership, and that when Canadians are concerned about climate change, now is the time we should be listening to what they have to say and to have a national price on pollution?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the comments made by my colleague from Winnipeg North. Yes, we need strong federal leadership, but it has failed. The current government has failed. It was the Auditor General who said in his report that there is no strong federal leadership. That is because the government is imposing a Liberal carbon tax on each and every one who does not have a carbon tax or a cap and trade deal. Let me remind all members that this responsibility belongs to each and every province. If Parliament would like to have a carbon tax, go for it, vote for it, and then decide what it wants, but it is not the role, as far as we are concerned, of the federal government to impose something on the provinces. On the other hand, we suggest giving a hand to those who want to protect our environment. That is exactly what we did in 2007 with our program with such great success, providing $1.5 billion in direct, good investment for protection of the environment. In French, we call it “éco-fiducie”. This is why we had the right approach, and the Liberals do not have it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the member speak and it is fun to work with him.

The problem is that we have a bit of a reality check here, as I mentioned in response to the Liberal members. The truth of the matter is that when the commissioner responsible for auditing whether both governments had delivered on the sustainable development obligations audited them, both governments abjectly failed.

For the entire 10 years of the Harper government, the commissioner failed that government on delivering on what it had promised to do: balancing the environment and economic development. We hear that over and over again. What his previous government did was to promise oil and gas regulations. Did it ever deliver those? The Conservatives thought regulations were the answer, but gosh darn, they did not do it. Perhaps the member could speak to that. The Conservatives are saying they have a plan. Are they still going to promise the same measures they did not implement when they were in power?

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

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the facts are clear: les réductions de gaz à effet de serre to 2.2%, and growth of the economy by 16.9%. Those are the facts. Yes, I can assure the member and all Canadians that we will have a strong platform on that issue, and I welcome the time when we will be in an election in 18 months.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, my colleague gives some of the best speeches around here, no doubt. One of very interesting things in his speech was the good numbers he cited. He said he had posted them on the Internet. Where on the Internet did the member put them?

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

I put them on Twitter, Mr. Speaker.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I would like to acknowledge the great work that was done by members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Of the many recommendations put forward by the committee, I would like to focus on the recommendations to introduce amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act that would enable a whole-of-government approach and comprehensive engagement of all central government agencies in the development and implementation of the federal sustainable development strategy. I am going to speak to the House today about the roles and responsibilities of the various players in implementing the Federal Sustainable Development Act. These include the federal sustainable development strategy departments and agencies, the sustainable development office, parliamentarians, and the main purpose of this debate, the Sustainable Development Advisory Council.

When we think about a whole-of-government approach to sustainable development, we know that it can be accomplished in a number of ways.

First, Bill C-57 introduces some changes that would expand the act's coverage to include all federal organizations named in schedules I, I.1, and II to the Financial Administration Act, more than 90, in total compared to 26 in the current act. The act also provides for adding other entities at a later date and for removing entities.

While Environment and Climate Change Canada coordinates the development of the federal sustainable development strategy and its progress reports, these documents are the product of a collaborative effort involving all implicated federal organizations. The bill would require departments and agencies bound by the act to contribute to the development of the federal sustainable development strategy and its progress reports. It would also strengthen the accountabilities of all departments and agencies by requiring annual reporting to parliamentary committees.

Second, under an amended act, primary responsibility for the federal sustainable development strategy would remain with Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, Bill C-57 would formalize Treasury Board's role in leading greening government operation efforts. The bill provides that the Treasury Board may establish policies or issue directives applicable to organizations covered by the act in relation to the sustainable development impact of their operations.

Parliamentarians must also play an important role to ensure a whole-of-government approach to the FSDA when strategies and progress reports are tabled and referred to committees. Furthermore, Bill C-57 allows for the permanent review of the act, which further provides parliamentarians with the ability to ensure that the act takes a whole-of-government approach and remains, most importantly, transparent.

Stakeholders—which include parliamentarians, the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, non-governmental organizations, academia, associations, and Canadians—would also play a major role in developing the FSDS by providing input and feedback on the development and drafting of the FSDS.

In fact, under Bill C-57, the sustainable development office at Environment and Climate Change Canada would remain required to consult with stakeholders and Canadians for feedback and input into the FSDS for a period of 120 days. Under the current act, comments received from stakeholders and Canadians are summarized in a consultation synthesis report that is produced and posted to the web by the office, and these comments inform the final federal sustainable development strategy and subsequent progress reports. However, Bill C-57 moves one step further by stating that designated entities under the bill shall take into account comments made under public consultation.

Finally, and the reason for this debate, the sustainable development office is to seek advice from the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, the SDAC, as part of its governance structure and its consultation and engagement process.

When we first started the debate, it was led off by the Conservatives, who came up with a beautiful little statement that they felt they were being misled by the Prime Minister. Incredibly enough, we were misled by the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, for he cancelled the national round table on the environment and the economy, the NRTEE, which was a Canadian advisory agency founded by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in response to the 1987 United Nations document “Our Common Future”. The NRTEE focused on sustaining Canada's prosperity without borrowing resources from future generations or compromising their ability to live securely. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper ended funding to the NRTEE, which ceased to exist on March 31, 2013.

The national round table was an independent policy advisory agency of the Government of Canada. Its mandate was to raise awareness among Canadians and their governments about the challenges of sustainable development. Over 25 years it released dozens of reports on priority issues—forests, brownfields, infrastructure, energy, water, air, climate change, and more. It offered advice to governments on how best to consolidate and integrate the often divergent challenges of economic prosperity and environmental conservation. It brought together hundreds of leaders and experts with first-hand knowledge in a diversity of areas. Its members, appointed by the federal government, were active in businesses, universities, environmentalism, labour, public policy, and community life across Canada.

On March 21, 2013, the Conservative government, in the decade of darkness under Stephen Harper, eliminated the budget for the NRTEE, effectively ending it. The then environment minister initially offered the rationale that the funding was unnecessary because Canadians could at that time access climate change research through the Internet, universities, and think tanks.

However, in response to a question in the House of Commons, then foreign affairs minister John Baird said the government should not be funding the round table because it had issued a series of reports advocating a form of carbon pricing, which he said the people of Canada had repeatedly rejected. He said the round table should agree with Canadians and should agree with the government and should not offer independent advice.

The round table released several reports that concluded that the federal government would have to act more aggressively in order to reach its Kyoto protocol target of a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020.

On March 26, 2013, the then minister of the environment issued a directive preventing the round table from transferring its research and the contents of its website to Sustainable Prosperity, a national research network based at the University of Ottawa. Instead, he said, Environment Canada would lay claim to all previous work, which was promised to remain accessible to the public. However, the move appeared to leave the fate of the two unpublished documents on the history, role, and relationship of the round table to the government uncertain. These reflections of past leaders of the NRTEE were subsequently leaked and posted on the Internet.

It is important that under this legislation the Sustainable Development Advisory Council would play an important role by advising the minister on any matter related to sustainable development that is referred to it by the minister. More specifically, it would ensure that the government takes a whole-of-government view, seeking the advice and expertise of Canadians who reflect our country's diversity of background, ethnicity, age, gender, and circumstance.

Research indicates that several OECD member countries have a national sustainable development commission or council similar to our Sustainable Development Advisory Council. These councils often meet on an ongoing basis throughout the year.

Moreover, reforms to the Sustainable Development Advisory Council set out in Bill C-57 would enhance inclusiveness by increasing representation of indigenous peoples from three members to six, by clarifying that the Sustainable Development Advisory Council has a broad mandate to provide advice on sustainable development, and by enabling more effective engagement.

There are governance mechanisms already in place to ensure proper oversight of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. The additional provisions in clause 5 of Bill C-57 will help to ensure that the best possible advice and guidance is provided on issues that touch all Canadians.

I hope that all of us in the House can support our common desire to make decision-making related to development more transparent, promote coordinated action across the Government of Canada, and ensure we receive maximum benefit from the Sustainable Development Advisory Council based on expert advice using data and science.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at one point in my colleague's speech he talked about a 120-day consultation. I am wondering if he could elaborate on what that 120 days is all about.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-57 the sustainable development office at Environment and Climate Change Canada would remain required to consult with stakeholders and Canadians for feedback and input into the FSDS for a period of 120 days.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’s recommendations was to “clarify that sustainable development encompasses and requires thorough consideration of economic, social and environmental factors.”

That is not what is in the bill, and I would like to know why.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I did not understand the question in French.

Could the member rephrase her question?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Would the member for Hochelaga please repeat her question?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak a little slower.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made several recommendations. One of them was to “clarify that sustainable development encompasses and requires thorough consideration of economic, social and environmental factors.”

That is not reflected in this bill. Why?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that with all the mechanisms provided in the bill, such as the advisory council, we will be able to hear a variety of expert opinions. I am sure that Environment and Climate Change Canada will have all the data and resources needed to ensure environmentally sustainable development.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague the first time when he said what the 120 days were for, but he emphasized it a second time, as if he was incredulous about the 120 days and there was some other meaning to the 120 days that he was concerned about. Because he repeated it a second time, I am wondering what the incredulity about the 120 days was.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, 120 days is an adequate amount of time for people to consult with stakeholders, prepare a report, and report back. It is just about holding people to account.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, someone I have gotten to know and who I know is very sensitive on a number of files.

On the issue of sustainable development, I would ask for his thoughts from an indigenous perspective on just how important the environment is and why indigenous consultations take place on projects when it comes to matters of economic development.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the member for Winnipeg North, my esteemed from colleague just north of me, from the member for Winnipeg Centre.

It is interesting that he should talk about sustainable development among indigenous communities. In Manitoba, six years ago, there was a flood. People were not planning for sustainable development for the environment, and an indigenous community was flooded just outside of both of our ridings. There was an NDP government at the time, and it is just recently that members of the community have been able to move back into their homes with funding from our government at the federal level. This is important, because these communities are often impacted by flooding because they are seen, or were seen, as being very unimportant.

We are looking at how to build bridges between different peoples and how to ensure that all peoples who make up the diversity of Canada are represented not only on the advisory council but in government decisions, using the whole-of-government approach to ensure we have not only a diversity of opinions but expertise from across all government agencies that have a role and an impact on sustainable development.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this particular bill. The bill has the stated objective of ensuring sustainable development and improving accountability and transparency. I would like to talk about those three concepts. I know that they are often talked about in this place, so I am pleased to stand up today to add my voice, the representative voice for Peace River—Westlock, to this debate.

We have a lot of things going on these days, but today I would like to move a motion. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the adoption of the motion, seconded by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, that the standing orders be amended by deleting Standing Orders 57, 61, and 78.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence, and I appreciate the audience that has returned. There they go again. However, I know for sure that my biggest fan is here today, so I will be pleased to speak to her if nobody else is available to listen to my speech today.

My speech has three points I want to discuss: sustainable development, transparency, and accountability. One of the parts of this bill I am incredibly pleased about is increasing the number of indigenous voices on the advisory councils. That is an important part. Indigenous people bring something I am very pleased about, which is the whole concept of the Creator. Whenever they are talking about the environment or working in this space, they always bring in the Creator. Whenever we are in the presence of first nations people, we see that they like to start events with a prayer, and they always recognize the Creator. When it comes to talking about sustainable development, an important aspect is this interplay between people and creation, and how that works in terms of public policy.

It would be a good addition to have these voices there, which understand that creation is not ours but granted to us by a higher being. That would temper and allow us to see ourselves as managers. I think that this would be a good voice at these tables. We are to manage the creation because it has been endowed to us by the Creator. I am really excited to see how these new bodies will work this all out.

Sustainable development is sometimes a bit of a loaded term, so I would like to talk about that as well. In my mind, sustainable development means that whatever we develop can go on in perpetuity. That would be what it means to be sustainable. Now, when we talk about it in environmental terms, we are often asking if the environment can handle it. In many cases, there is not just one lens through which to look at any particular issue. It is not just the environment that can be looked at. The idea first nations bring is that there is a Creator who will then look at it. That is a better way to look at particular issues, rather than through just one lens, the environment. It is good to look at sustainability in terms of how it impacts people, children, the vulnerable, and finances. Something is not sustainable if it goes broke. That is another part of sustainable development that we need to undertake.

In the House, I think we all agree about sustainable development, but we often have very different ideas about what the term “sustainable development” even means.

I have four minutes left. Well, that is unfortunate, but if four minutes is all I have left, I will have to work with that.

I do not think the Liberals really understand sustainable development, particularly when we see their own budgets. If we want this country to develop sustainably, we would not run massive deficits into the never-ending future. With the current rate of spending by the government, I would be a very old man by the time we get to balancing the budget, if we continue on this path. All this does is place an increased burden on our children and grandchildren.

I am happy to support this particular bill, but I would call on the Liberal government to get an understanding of what “sustainable” actually means.

That brings us to the whole idea of transparency. Once again, this is a great concept. I think all of us in this place want transparency in government. That is something that is very important. Once again, we see that the government talks a good game when it comes to transparency. The Liberal platform in the last election said great things about transparency. The Liberals were going to open up a whole new level of transparency, as the Prime Minister said.

However, when it comes to the carbon tax, the entire thing was blacked out when we asked what the cost of the new carbon tax imposed by the Liberals would be to the average Canadian family. The Liberals are not being transparent.

Once again, I am happy that we are all supportive of this particular bill. I am happy that it is improving transparency, and yet, as is often the case, every party in this place uses the word “transparency” to mean different things. In the case of the Liberals, they just say words and expect that everybody will believe them, just as they say that the pipeline will be built. We have to see if that is actually going to happen.

I am happy to support transparency. I am happy to support this bill. However, once again, I call on the Liberal government to reflect on the fact that while it says it supports transparency, its actions speak louder than words.

I get the impression that my time is coming to a close.

Finally, we have the word “accountable”. Whenever the government talks about accountability, it does so with its hand on its heart, and yet it is always frustrating to see that the government is not necessarily always accountable. The Liberals see the word “accountable” and think about their bank accounts and how they can put more money in their bank accounts, rather than being accountable.

We have seen it over and over again with the ethics scandals that have been going on, and also pay-to-play. The Liberals then say, “Oh well, we have been caught, and now we will fix the problem. Sorry, we did not understand.”

Accountability is a great thing to be supporting. Once again, I call on the Liberal government to reflect upon what it means when it says “accountable”. When it says that it wants to be an accountable government, it should actually do the things that it takes to be accountable.

With that, I would like to close my speech. I am happy to support this bill and its efforts toward sustainable development, transparency, and accountability. I hope that the Liberal government of the day reflects on those three items, reforms its ways, and comes to some sort of semblance of sustainable development, transparency, and accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to see action as opposed to words. Within this legislation, there is action on all three. We have seen a high sense of co-operation among the different parties at the committee stage.

We talk about accountability. Here is the question I would put to my friend across the way. The mover of the motion to amend the legislation in committee put in an amendment to ensure that the advisory council would receive some form of compensation for things such as travel. The amendment that the member for Abbotsford put forward today is going to delete the amendment that the Conservatives put in at the committee stage. What sense of accountability do the Conservatives get out of putting in an amendment to change the legislation and then taking away the changes they put in at the committee stage? It does not make any sense.

Is the member going to support this amendment, based on what he now knows about the amendment?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the amendment. The member for Abbotsford moved the amendment, and I trust his judgment on this.

I know what he has told me. Whenever the Liberal government builds some new form of entity, it always comes with lots of paid positions. The Liberal government loves to spend taxpayers' money. With this particular amendment, we are standing up for the taxpayers and ensuring that they are fairly compensated and protected. In the House, there is no party, other than the Conservative Party of Canada, that stands up for the taxpayers.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that economic, social and environmental factors should be treated equally when it comes to legislation on sustainable development? Furthermore, whether he agrees or not, does he think that this is reflected in this bill?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked if social and economic pressures should be taken into account whenever we are making decisions when it comes to sustainable development. I think I addressed this at the beginning of my speech. However, if the member is now asking if they are equal, I think that possibly is the difference.

Everybody typically has the same set of values, but it is just how they are ordered that determines how people make decisions. Therefore, I am not sure these would always necessarily have equal weighting when taking things into account, whether that be the social or environmental aspect. I am not sure how we would determine if they are to be equal. One person may put more weight on one than the other. That is just a matter of fact. As a Canadian society, we grapple with these things.

However, the advisory council will go a long way, particularly with the first nation component that has been included in the bill. I think that is a great start. Our first nations typically have a good balance of economy, people, and the environment. I am happy to see that in this particular bill. This bill is a step in the right direction.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of discussion about sustainability from the government. However, the Liberals do not seem to have a broad appreciation of what that means. They are undertaking tax increases as an environmental policy without any real plan to actually focus on measurable improvements in the environment. By the way, their fiscal policy is entirely unsustainable: they are running massive deficits that future generations will have to pay off.

In that light, I wonder if my colleague can comment further on what the government's concept of sustainability is and how far it misses the mark on it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of troubling things about the government is its very cynical approach to the environment, namely that it must be protected from Canadians. The Conservative Party's approach is that the environment must be protected for Canadians. That is the key, driving motivation.

I firmly believe that between our ears we have the capacity to solve most of the problems that present themselves when it comes to dealing with the environment, rather than just taxing Canadians in an effort to try to change their behaviours.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again in the House on behalf of my wonderful riding of Saint John—Rothesay and to have the privilege of addressing my colleagues and to reaffirm our government's commitment to sustainable development and future generations of Canadians.

Through Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, our government is working to ensure that decision-making related to sustainable development is more transparent, subject to accountability, and promotes coordination across the Government of Canada.

Let me begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for their excellent work. It has culminated in a unanimous report calling on the government to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The committee's hard work was seminal in guiding the government in the development of Bill C-57.

Stable development is critically important not just in Canada, but across the world. By adopting the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, Canada will contribute to a global framework of action that strives for global sustainable development and aims to eradicate poverty and to leave no one behind. Nobody knows more about poverty and the fight against it than I do in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

Through its participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the historic Paris Agreement, Canada is also signalling a renewed global commitment to address climate change. Our government is making sure that Canada succeeds during the clean growth century and the shift toward cleaner, more sustainable growth.

It is in this global context that we find ourselves resolutely committed to ensuring that Canada is a sustainable development leader. That is why we are proposing amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act that will propel us along the path to a sustainable future.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Federal Sustainable Development Act, let me say a few words about its origins, what it is, and what it does, In particular, I want to discuss how the amendments in clause 5 regarding the Sustainable Development Advisory Council would strengthen accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness in developing future strategies and how they complement action we are already taking under our current federal sustainable development strategy, FSDS.

The original act was introduced as a private member's bill by the Hon. John Godfrey in November 2007. Sustainable development was seen as such an important issue that it received all-party support in the minority 39th Parliament.

The purpose of the current act is to provide a framework to develop and implement the federal sustainable development strategy to make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament. The act also sets out which departments are required to develop a departmental strategy in compliance with and contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy. In addition, the act outlines the requirements to consult on a draft strategy; to create an advisory council; and to table a strategy and progress report every three years.

A key outcome of the act is the development of the federal sustainable development strategy, which is the Government of Canada's flagship strategy on sustainable development. The strategy itself sets out Canada's sustainable development goals, targets, and implementation strategies to meet those targets.

The current federal sustainable development strategy is the strongest to date. It was developed using an inclusive, participatory approach aimed at engaging and involving all Canadians. We released a draft strategy in February 2016 and asked Canadians to share with us their vision for a sustainable Canada and to suggest how we could strengthen transparency and accountability.

The response was unprecedented. Canadians provided more than 540 written comments, 12 times the number of responses received by the previous strategy. On social media, Canadians contributed about 900 posts and replies on the draft strategy. Overall, the draft strategy reached more than 400,000 people over the course of the public consultation period. That is an outstanding response.

We heard from individual Canadians, who showed they are interested, engaged, and passionate about sustainable development. We also heard from provincial governments, indigenous organizations, industry, professional associations, academics, and environmental non-governmental organizations. We spoke with sustainable development advisory councils, with representatives from each province and territory, as well as members of indigenous groups, and organizations representing business and labour, and environmental non-governmental organizations, as I mentioned.

The strategy also benefited from the standing committee's review of the act and its recommendations. Evidence from the review included insightful testimony from witnesses, such as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Hon. John Godfrey, the originator of the bill that became the act.

The current federal sustainable development strategy also demonstrates a more strategic and aspirational approach than others in the past. It contains more measurable and time-bound targets, including reduction of Canada's total GHG emissions by 40% by 2030 relative to 2005 emission levels. However, we felt we could go beyond improving the strategy, to improve the act itself. That is why, spurred by the standing committee's unanimous recommendations, our government introduced Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Our bill proposes a number of changes to the act. First, it amends the purpose of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, with a view to making decision-making related to sustainable development at large—not only environmental decision-making—more transparent and accountable to Parliament. The 2030 agenda makes it clear that sustainable development is not just about the environment, and the revised purpose recognizes this by proposing to remove the current emphasis on the environment.

The purpose also promotes co-ordinated action across the Government of Canada to advance sustainable development and respect for Canada's domestic and international obligations relating to sustainable development. The amended act would therefore recognize the 2030 agenda, the Paris Agreement, and Canada's other international obligations that bear on the well-being of future generations of Canadians.

Bill C-57 also proposes the addition of numerous sustainable development principles. To the basic principle, the precautionary principle, already included in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the bill adds principles on intergenerational equity, openness and transparency, the importance of involving aboriginal peoples, collaboration, and results and delivery.

Let me say a few words about these principles that would guide the government's plans and actions on sustainable development. The principles emphasize that sustainable development is a continually evolving concept, and allow the government to address new and emerging issues within future strategies. They also highlight approaches the government should consider taking when developing sustainable development strategies. In particular, the principle of intergenerational equity is the essence of sustainable development. It recognizes that the decisions we make are not just about today, but also about tomorrow and far into the future. The principle of the polluter pays and the internalization of costs are also integral to sustainable development, in recognizing that we must go beyond thinking of economic growth in conventional terms and stop seeing environmental damages as externalities.

The principle of openness and transparency supports the Federal Sustainable Development Act's stated purpose to make the decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability in Parliament. The bill is about promoting a whole-of-government approach and increasing accountabilities under the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Bill C-57 would dramatically increase the number of federal organizations that are covered by the act, from the current 26 to over 90. This would truly make it a whole-of-government strategy.

I hope by highlighting some of the major features of the bill, members will agree it would help to push Canada along the path toward a more sustainable future for our children, for our grandchildren, and for their children after that. I am sure all members of the House would support that.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what my colleague had to say. I want to repeat a couple of phrases that he used throughout his speech, such as environmental decision-making, sustainable development strategies, meeting our domestic and international obligations, and stopping environmental damage. I think we are all in agreement with those principles.

However, earlier today I asked one of his colleagues about the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River from Montreal. That happened in 2015, just after the government took office. Then again this year, in February, another 43 million litres of raw sewage was dumped into the St. Lawrence River from Quebec City.

How does that kind of action, degrading our environment, fit with these four principles I heard throughout his speech, principles of environmental decision-making, sustainable development strategies, meeting our domestic and international obligations, and stopping environmental damage?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to sustainable development and having that commitment reflected in the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Canadians have told us they want a sustainable future for Canada. The bill clearly shows that sustainable development and the environment are at the forefront of our thinking in government decision-making going forward.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for the broad majority of Canadians when I assert in the House that Canadians want sustainable development. We want to have a strong economy and we want to do it in a way that protects our environment for the long term.

One of the ways we measure that is by whether Canada is meeting its obligations for greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions as set out in the Paris accord. I was disappointed to see the Liberal government adopt the previous Conservative government's unambitious climate change targets. Apparently we are not even meeting those targets. Our greenhouse gas emissions are not on a trajectory where we will achieve those targets. The Prime Minister went to Paris and signed on to more onerous targets through the Paris accord, and we are nowhere near meeting those targets.

If Canada is not on target to meet our present greenhouse gas emissions targets and we are not on target to meet the Paris accord targets, could my hon. colleague explain why his government is pushing for an expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in the country, which would no doubt make hitting those targets even harder?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is consistent that the NDP does not think we go far enough on a lot of environmental things, yet those members do not seem to have answers themselves. We have an NDP government provincially that is supportive of a pipeline. We have a national NDP now that is against the pipeline.

Through the committee recommendations, the sustainable development bar for Canada has been raised. The committee has already been instrumental in how we develop the 2016 to 2019 federal sustainable development strategy and how it is currently being implemented. It will continue to influence development and implementation of future strategies.

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

Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the importance of leaving a healthy economy and environment, could my colleague share his thoughts from a constituency perspective?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is Saint John—Rothesay. I do not think that is any secret. It is an industrial riding, in fact one of the most industrial ridings east of Montreal. We are also a coastal community. We have seen flooding and we have seen a change in climate. Therefore, people in my riding, including industry, understand the significance of this and the impact this would have.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I would first like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for their excellent work. We congratulate the committee members and the witnesses for their points of view and commitment to addressing the challenges of sustainable development in the federal government. The government supports the committee's positive approach and constructive ideas.

The committee's recommendations in its report “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations” include broadening the purpose and scope of the act, adopting well-accepted sustainable development principles, increasing the number of federal entities that prepare a sustainable development strategy, establishing criteria for the targets, improving enforceability, and engaging and empowering Canadians.

Not only were the committee's recommendations helpful in developing the bill, but the report and the recommendation played an important role in establishing the 2016-19 federal sustainable development strategy, the FSDS.

First, the strategy recognizes the role of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and its global sustainable development goals. In fact, the FSDS targets are a reflection of environment-related sustainable development goals. We drew inspiration from international sustainable development goals and other international commitments in order to develop more ambitious and measurable goals, and we made a clear commitment to the principles and the adoption of a whole-of-government approach.

Reflecting the committee’s comment that sustainable development goes beyond the environment, the strategy includes goals with strong social and economic dimensions, including clean growth, clean drinking water, sustainable food, and safe and healthy communities.

Second, the strategy addresses the committee's recommendation for strong targets and increased accountability by including more ambitious and measurable targets compared with the draft 2016-19 strategy and past strategies. For example, it establishes a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from federal government operations by 40% by 2030, which is significantly more ambitious than the draft strategy’s 30%-reduction target. It also reflects the government’s commitment to address long-term drinking water advisories in first nations communities, replacing a previous target that did not directly address drinking water safety or quality.

Third, reflecting the committee’s recommendation to include short-, medium-, and long-term targets, the strategy includes new short-term milestones that complement its long-term goals and medium-term targets. These milestones will help the government to gauge progress toward the strategy’s goals and targets and, if necessary, to make course corrections during the strategy’s three-year cycle.

Fourth, it responds to the committee’s recommendation for a suite of well-accepted sustainable development principles by providing a clear commitment to principles beyond the two set out in the act: the precautionary principle and the basic principle that sustainable development is based on an ecologically efficient use of natural, social and economic resources. These principles include polluter pays, reconciliation, intergenerational equity, public participation, and integration.

Fifth, reflecting the committee’s recommendation for a whole-of-government approach, the 2016-2019 strategy provides broader participation across the federal government than ever before. Fifteen federal departments and agencies participate voluntarily in the strategy in addition to the 26 required to do so under the act.

This brings the total number of departments and agencies to 41, which is 8 more than in 2013-2016. The committee's recommendations have already had an impact on the FSDS.

Now, I want to take a look at the amendments before us. The revised purpose of the bill includes respect for Canada's domestic and international obligations relating to sustainable development, such as the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This new purpose will bring the strategy in line with Canada's future obligations and commitments, as well as the changing priorities and decisions related to sustainable development.

The bill also includes new sustainable development principles that will be added to the act. The new principles include prevention of pollution, intergenerational equity, openness and transparency, the involvement of aboriginal peoples, collaboration, a results and delivery approach, and the preservation of the basic principle of sustainable development and of the precautionary principle.

These principles set clear guidelines to help departments develop their own sustainable development strategies and draft an annual report on their actions and results to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and to the corresponding Senate committee. Furthermore, the government will continue to publish a whole-of-government progress report on FSDS, at least once every three years, which will highlight actions taken by participating ministers and agencies and their results.

We also believe that the government should be a leader, which is why we think the Treasury Board should step up and ensure that the Government of Canada's operations are environmentally sound. Leadership from central agencies will establish guiding principles on the federal government's environmental footprint, providing for an integrated, pan-governmental approach. This way, the government will lead the way on cutting emissions.

In addition, the changes proposed would increase the number of federal agencies from 26 to more than 90, extending the scope of the act to federal institutions and agencies that have a considerable ecological footprint, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the National Energy Board.

The principles of openness and transparency will be strengthened by encouraging the release of information to support accountability. The bill also proposes that interdepartmental evaluation mechanisms be put in place, including requiring federal ministers to report annually to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the corresponding Senate committee. These committees will play a key role by forcing the government to account for its sustainable development results and monitoring the implementation of the act.

For example, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in particular will play a central role in holding the government accountable for sustainable development results. It may monitor the implementation of our overall approach and ask departments to account for their progress in achieving the FSDS targets. Several other amendments will help make the federal sustainable development strategy even stronger.

The committee also proposed enshrining the principle of intergenerational equity in the act. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development supports intergenerational equity. Amendments to the act will result in a reform of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Council members will take into account demographic considerations such as age and sex so that the council is more representative of diversity and Canadian society.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we support Bill C-57 and the sustainable development strategy. Throughout the member's speech, I heard a number of phrases used, such as quality of drinking water, pollution prevention, polluter pays, a results-based approach, and the precautionary principle. Those are all great, and Conservatives support them.

However, I asked twice already today in the House, and both times did not receive an answer, how to square the idea of these good principles, these great-sounding words, with the actions of the Liberal government on the protection of our water and drinking water. In November of 2015, the government approved the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River in Montreal. One would think that was just a mistake it made, but again, in 2018, in Quebec City, another 43 million litres of raw sewage were dumped into the St. Lawrence River.

How can we use these great principles and good-sounding words but not follow them up with action that actually protects our environment?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Our government also takes spills very seriously. They affect the environment, and we are making decisions concerning this issue. I am convinced that everything is in place. That is why our government has put so many members around the table: to make the best decisions we can, to answer all the questions and to produce the most complete report possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last two and a half years, we have seen strong leadership on the environment file. When we talk about the importance of sustainable development, I would argue that one of the best examples is the Trans Mountain pipeline. We have a government that listened to the different stakeholders. There is a report based on science. The national interest was taken into consideration, and ultimately, we are seeing a commitment to the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline. That is what sustainable development, in good part, is all about: looking at ways we can advance the economy and the environment at the same time.

We now have legislation that would enhance more accountability and transparency by getting different departments and agencies working collaboratively in certain areas. This is a positive thing. Indigenous representation is guaranteed on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council that reports to the minister. I would argue that these are all positive and encouraging things that have happened in a relatively short time span. It was only two and a half years ago that the Liberals were elected.

I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts. For me personally, it is important, because it is what I believe my constituents want. I would ask him to reflect on what he believes his constituents want, from the government's perspective.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He gave a partial answer, since our government firmly believes that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. That is the case in my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, through which the pipeline will eventually run.

Our government has held historic consultations. We met with organizations, municipalities, provinces, territories and Aboriginal groups. We held consultations across the country to explain to people that the environment and respect for the people on the land are priorities for our government. Ultimately, the economy and the environment must go hand in hand in this project.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. The official opposition, the Conservatives, completely agree. Contrary to popular belief, Conservatives do not wake up every morning plotting to destroy the planet. We did a lot for the environment in the past.

The principles of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, are commendable. Nobody can argue with the bill's intentions. However, now that we know how this government operates, we have serious doubts about its intention to respect our environment, set clear benchmarks, and make Canada more attractive to foreign investors so we can grow the economy while respecting the environment. I would point out that Canada has some of the strictest environmental standards. The previous government, under Mr. Harper, did a lot for the environment.

As I was saying, the bill's principles are commendable, but we have some serious concerns. The Liberals have been kind of inconsistent and seem to have trouble keeping their promises. People are losing confidence in the government, especially when it comes to the environment. To substantiate that claim, I would refer to the commissioner of the environment, who, in her recent reports, commented that she is very disappointed in the results but congratulated the former Conservative government on its actions. That reflects well on us. People should stop saying that Conservatives wake up every morning looking for ways to destroy the planet because that is totally false.

I would like to come back to the minister's mandate letter, which reads, and I quote:

Canadians sent a clear message in this election, and our platform offered a new, ambitious plan for a strong and growing middle class. Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments...

We can already see that the government has fallen short, just from that section of the environment minister's mandate letter. It goes on to say, and I quote:

If we are to tackle the real challenges we face as a country—from a struggling middle class to the threat of climate change—Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen.

If members read the news and keep up with current events, they will see that Canadians are losing confidence in this government, particularly when it comes to the environment. Fine words are all well and good, but the government also needs to be clear and consistent. It needs to keep its promises. However, the government is not doing what it said it would in the environment minister's mandate letter and in the mandate letters of many other government ministers. The ministers are not keeping their promises and they are not necessarily being honest in their actions. They want to look good, but when it comes right down to it, they are not keeping their word.

The mandate letter also says, and I quote:

It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them.

The Liberals have a lot of trouble doing that and they wait a long time to own up to their mistakes. The opposition is forced to draw attention to those mistakes day after day until the government realizes that it needs to reconsider. The Liberals are not even following the instructions they gave their ministers in their mandate letters. The letter goes on to say, and I quote:

Canadians do not expect us to be perfect...

We do not pretend to be perfect, either, but it is important to aim for perfection, and that is not what the people on the other side are doing. The letter continues:

...they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

Speaking of honesty and sincerity, let us talk about the marathon study of Bill C-69 that we just finished. I have the privilege to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which came under pressure to hurry up. All the members of the House were pressured to hurry up, preventing us from doing our work properly. Even the Liberals presented over 100 amendments. We were inundated with more than 30 briefs a day for a month.

Let us do the math. Is it humanly possible for an MP to do their work properly under such conditions? Furthermore, all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee were also hurried along. Very few of them got selected. The number of witnesses was capped. Many witnesses were disappointed not to speak. The avalanche of briefs we got shows how important this issue is to all the witnesses from across Canada. The problem with this process is that we are being made to rush just to get it over with. My personal impression is that the Liberals are following a political agenda. They are not really trying to protect the environment with Bill C-69.

They rushed us, they bulldozed through the process, and they made an omnibus bill. It is more than 650 pages long. I do not claim to be an expert, but most, if not all, of the experts who testified before the committee said they were deeply disappointed with this bill. The committee even heard from a university professor who suggested scrapping the bill and starting fresh. That says it all. That suggestion did not come from the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. It came from a specialist who studies the environment on a daily basis.

I come back to the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment, whom I respect greatly, but who is guided by political agendas and opportunities. Unfortunately, she has no control over what happens in her department.

In partnership with provinces and territories, establish national emissions-reduction targets, ensuring that the provinces and territories have targeted federal funding and the flexibility to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies.

That is not what the Liberals did. They imposed the carbon tax and then left it up to the people to figure it out and do what they wanted. They cannot even tell us how this is going to reduce greenhouse gases. Take Australia, for example. That country implemented a carbon tax, but that tax no longer exists in Australia because it was ineffective.

Let us look at British Columbia and see whether greenhouse gases are on the rise or on the decline. That province has a carbon tax.

I am committed to leading an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards, brings our country together, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds.

Considering what I said earlier, I do not think I need to comment. My colleagues can draw their own conclusions. We have serious doubts.

In her report, the environment commissioner emphasized that the Liberal government has not succeeded, I repeat, has not succeeded in reducing greenhouse gas emissions or adapting to the effects of climate change. I am not the one saying this. This is not partisanship, it is the environment commissioner who said so. I have much more respect for her than for our friends across the aisle. The commissioner clearly indicated that the Liberals have made no progress in honouring Canada’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She confirmed that there was a lack of leadership in adapting to the effects of climate change. We should not be surprised.

In the last Parliament, we, the Conservative members of the House, implemented important measures that enabled us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We cut them by 15%. That is something. We did such a good job that the Liberals used our targets when they went to Paris to negotiate the Paris Agreement. They submitted the targets the Conservative government set when it was in power, and they applied them. They spent their time criticizing our work, but they used our tools.

I could say considerably more, but I will allow my colleagues to ask me questions.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have only one very simple question to ask my colleague, who made a very nice presentation. I congratulate him on the excellent work he has done for us on the environment.

I would like to raise the fundamental question of transparency. He briefly mentioned that the government currently has documents that indicate beyond a doubt the cost of the carbon tax for Canadian families. However, the government redacted these documents to hide the exact amount it will cost Canadians.

Can my colleague tell us his thoughts on this and share what he heard about the carbon tax in committee?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who has done excellent work. I will be adopting his hairstyle on June 9. I will become his disciple. It suits him, but we will see what it does for me.

As my colleague mentioned, we have our doubts. We do not have the information and the government is hiding information. We do not even know what effect the carbon tax will have on greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot say how much money will be taken out of Canadian families' pockets. That is not very reassuring. Of course, we must protect the environment and take steps to introduce new technologies, but this government is not taking action. It is only trying to look good. Once again, with Bill C-69 it is making it look as though it is implementing additional controls and enhancing the regulations, but, in the end, the government has the last word. It is the minister who has the power.

If we reread Bill C-69, we see that this government does not have confidence in the people. It wants to keep the power for itself and is acting like the Liberals did in the past. Members will recall the Gomery commission.

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

Mr. Speaker, in committee, the Conservative Party moved an amendment to the legislation to allow members of the sustainable development advisory committee to claim their airfare for travel. Therefore, if they flew to Ottawa, they could recover that cost. It provided that clarification. It is important to acknowledge that this was a Conservative amendment brought forward by the member for Abbotsford.

Today, the Conservative Party, through the member for Abbotsford, has introduced an amendment to get rid of the amendment we all supported at committee. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have this amendment before us today.

Could the member explain for the listeners and those following the debate today why the Conservative Party moved this amendment to get rid of the amendment, which we all accepted, that was proposed by the Conservatives in committee?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his excellent question.

As I said at the outset, we agree with the principles of Bill C-57. We wanted to improve the bill and we have serious concerns about the Liberal government's intentions. Why does it want to reimburse committee members for their expenses in addition to paying them? Is it trying to put a cash value on political assistance? Does this government really intend to put in place an effective committee that will advocate for the environment? My colleague can answer those questions at another time.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Specifically, I will discuss how the bill supports a results-oriented, accountable approach to federal sustainability. As chair of the environment committee, I also want to mention how the bill has incorporated many of the environment committee recommendations that were tabled as the first report of the committee, and a unanimous report, I might add, which is why today is so confusing with what is being brought forward.

I will begin by speaking about how the federal sustainable development strategy, or FSDS, supports accountability and transparency. Next, I will discuss the indicators that will be put in place to measure progress and how they will help demonstrate sustainable development results. Finally, I will describe how the amendments in Bill C-57 would strengthen accountability in future strategies and how they would complement action already being taken under our current FSDS. This includes clause 5, which seeks to ensure the federal government's approach better reflects Canada's diversity and its heritage.

The government has committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency, and that includes being transparent and accountable when it comes to the sustainable development results we achieve for Canadians. The FSDS that was tabled in October 2016 reflects this commitment. It provides the foundation for accountability by clearly defining what government wants to achieve.

At the core of the strategy, there are 13 aspirational goals, supported by measurable medium-term targets. The strategy identifies the federal minister responsible for achieving each of those targets.

The sustainable development goals and targets support the vision that Canada is one of the greenest countries in the world and that we want our quality of life to continue to improve. The goals reflect the environmental sustainable development goals of the United Nations 2030 agenda, aligning Canada's strategy with the priorities of the international community.

Responding to the expectations of Canadians and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the strategy includes stronger and more ambitious targets than previous strategies tabled in 2010 and 2013.

For the first time, short-term milestones have been included in the strategy. These milestones will help ensure we are on track to achieve our medium-term targets and our long-term goals.

I will now discuss how we are measuring progress on those strategies and communicating our results to parliamentarians, stakeholders, and Canadians.

Our strategy identifies a total of 46 indicators that will help us measure and report on our goals and targets. They are based on sound science and track Canada's progress on sustainable development issues about which Canadians care, such as air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, water quality, and our protected areas.

Many come from a network of environmental monitoring programs from across the country. These science-based programs deliver the data and information needed for the indicators. Many are founded on collaborative partnerships with provinces and territories, our partners.

For example, the air quality indicators report to Canadians on levels of five key air pollutants that can affect their health. These indicators use data from sources like the national air pollution surveillance program and a collaboration between Environment and Climate Change Canada and provincial, territorial, and municipal environmental agencies.

Similarly, the indicator on water quality in Canadian rivers uses data from federal, provincial, and territorial monitoring programs across Canada, as well as water quality guidelines from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and provincial and territorial sources.

Drawing on the indicators, the FSDS includes starting points so Canadians can closely track the government's progress over the strategy's three-year cycle. For instance, the strategy indicates that in 2014, 64.4% of Canada's electricity came from renewable sources and 80% from non-emitting sources. Canada's target is for 90% of our electricity to come from renewable and non-emitting sources by 2030, and 100% in the long term. As of 2015, 10.6% of Canada's terrestrial area was protected. Our target is 17% of lands and freshwater conserved by 2020. As the strategy is implemented, the government has already begun to report on the results.

The first-ever FSDS update was published in June 2017. The updates have provided early results for short-term milestones and show that a number of them have already been accomplished.

For example, Canada has ratified the historic Paris Agreement. The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change has been adopted by first ministers of the federal government and the 11 provinces and territories, an achievement about which we should feel quite proud. We have surpassed our target of protecting 5% of Canada's marine and coastal areas by 2017.

Through the tabling of a whole-of-government FSDS progress report that will draw on the indicators, the government will continue to report on sustainable development progress.

I will now describe how accountability and reporting will be enhanced, including through the amendments in Bill C-57.

Following our review of the FSDA in the spring of 2016, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that the government take action to strengthen accountability under the act. The government listened and has responded. Bill C-57 includes a number of amendments to significantly strengthen reporting and ensure that the government can be held accountable for results.

The bill provides a comprehensive suite of well-accepted sustainable development principles to guide future strategies. This includes a principle that a results and delivery approach is key to meeting measurable targets. This new approach clarifies the importance of developing objectives, developing strategies for meeting them, and using indicators to report on progress.

Bill C-57 would also require that each FSDS target be measurable and include a time frame. This would ensure that future strategies could support rigorous performance measurement and reporting.

The bill also specifies that departments and agencies across government are responsible for contributing to the development of FSDS progress reports. Sustainable development is not something that one department working on its own can accomplish. It is a whole-of-Government approach with a broad range of federal organizations that must play a role in developing, implementing, and reporting on the strategy.

Our approach must also reflect the input and perspectives of all Canadians, not just the perspective of government. This is why clause 5 of the bill, which addresses the composition and mandate for the Sustainable Development Advisory Council, is so important.

Under Bill C-57, the Sustainable Development Advisory Council would play an important role by advising the minister on any matter related to sustainable development that would be referred to it by the minister. More specifically, it would ensure the government would take a whole-of-Canada view, seeking the advice and expertise of Canadians that would reflect our country's diversity of background, ethnicity, age, gender, and circumstance.

Clause 5 also seeks to increase the number of indigenous people representatives on the council to better reflect indigenous groups represented and the broad range of challenges they face across Canada. This directly supports our efforts to forge new relationships with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

The government recognizes the importance of a transparent and accountable sustainable development approach. It is important that parliamentarians hold the government accountable for sustainable development goals and progress, and the amendments in the bill would strengthen and elevate their role.

The bill would require that all federal organizations bound by the act report each year to parliamentary committees, including the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, on progress in implementing their sustainability strategies. We found it was important to make them accountable back. We do not want to have to wait for the auditor to tell us what is going on. These strategies comply with and contribute to the broader FSDS and support the whole-of-government approach.

With this FSDS, which is the strongest to date, the government established ambitious goals, targets, and milestones that would let Canadians know where we wanted to be on sustainable development.

The indicators show the progress being made, drawing on sound science and high-quality data from across the country. The indicators will help determine whether we are on track to meet the targets and where we need to focus our efforts to address remaining challenges. They also form the basis of the reporting to parliamentarians and Canadians.

Strengthening accountability was a key issue and it was in the unanimous second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am very proud of our recommendations, the government's adoption of the recommendations, and the new bill that we are discussing today.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for King—Vaughan for her presentation today, but there are a few things that trouble me. I believe the hon. member's words were that sustainable development is not something one department can work on on its own. I would interject that I do not believe it is anything any department is going to be able to work on now because of the way Bill C-69 was pushed through the House two days ago. I believe there were about 600 pages of amendments. For the last half of those amendments, we could not even have officials in the room to advise the members that were debating the bill. In fact, we were not even able to debate the last half of those amendments.

I will say that there were over 126 amendments from the Liberal Party on their own Liberal government bill. Obviously, the bill came out half-baked, half-finished. As well, we have heard members of the resource sector and some from the energy sector saying that it is the “never do anything again” bill.

How can the hon. member say that all departments are going to have to work together, when the committee she chaired rammed through a bill that is basically going to stop any development of any significant type in Canada in the future?

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting how the member was weaving work that was done at committee on Bill C-69 into what we are discussing today in the House.

I just want to make a point to answer the question that was raised. All the committee members from all sides of the House brought many amendments. That was really to try to strengthen the bill. The work of a committee is to try to strengthen a bill of the government.

I am very proud of the fact that all the members who were working on the committee, plus those outside the committee, took the time to look at the bill and bring forward recommendations to strengthen it. We did consider all of those recommendations. We voted on all of them. We did. We heard from 50 witnesses. We had over 150 briefs. We considered every single one of those amendments and voted on them.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, yes, the standing committee did review this matter twice. In fact, the committee heard from experts, including the commissioner twice.

The commissioner then came to comment on this bill. She said she was happy that there were some additional factors to be considered, but she was deeply disappointed that although this is a sustainable development bill, it failed to reference the 2030 sustainable development goals Canada supposedly has signed on to. It also failed in reference to the Paris Agreement, although she reports on all the actions.

The commissioner just this year, this spring, issued a castigating report against the government for abjectly failing to have any measures in place to genuinely deliver sustainable development assessments. Let us remember that there is also a cabinet directive, which she had recommended should be incorporated into the act. The government decided not to, and she has given abject failures to every agency for failing to obey that.

Given that the commissioner is still failing the government on action, we did not need a new bill to tell us that it is taking it seriously. What is there about this bill, compared to the former one, that is going to finally make the government take seriously its responsibilities under the agreement it signed with the United Nations?

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were quite a few things in that question. I will touch on the one at the end and try to capture the others as well.

One of the things the commissioner brought forward was that there really was not an across-government approach to this, and the departments were not necessarily building toward sustainable development goals, even though they were supposed to. We heard that, and we made recommendations to suggest to the government that it tighten that up, which it has done. It brought in indicators and measures.

We have tightened up significantly. The commissioner brought the concerns to the committee, and we brought forward those changes. She has come back and said that she still wants to see more changes. I think what we are expecting is that the reports back to parliamentary committees are going to very much strengthen the power of parliamentarians to hold the government accountable. We do not have to wait for many years for the commissioner to come back and tell us that things are not what they should be. We are going to have those reports coming back and different committees responding. We will have parliamentarians holding the government accountable. We will also have Canadians holding the government accountable, because we are going to have measures and indicators that they are going to be monitoring.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon speaking to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I last spoke in the House at length on this bill in October 2017. I am thankful for the opportunity to have served on the environment committee for a while and have wrapped myself around this topic quite well.

What does it mean, and what is its purpose? I am going to refer to a specific section:

The purpose of this Act is to provide the legal framework for developing and implementing a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy that makes decision making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament, promotes coordinated action across the Government of Canada to advance sustainable development and respects Canada’s domestic and international obligations relating to sustainable development, with a view to improving the quality of life of Canadians.

There is another factor in that section I want to read:

the principle that sustainable development is based on an efficient use of natural, social and economic resources and the need for the Government of Canada to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all of its decisions;

I bring that up, because I am going to dwell on that later in my speech.

Our Conservative Party recognizes that sustainability needs to be included in every decision to ensure that there is a balance between social, economic, and environmental factors. We have always believed in that. The record will show that we are the only government in the last decade and a half that has a record of improving greenhouse gas emissions.

This type of policy-making ensures not only that today's generation will have a healthy and prosperous lifestyle but that we can pass health and prosperity on to future generations to come: my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, and everyone else's.

The importance of sustainable development is something on which all parties agree. I do not think anyone disagrees that we have to protect the environment or that the environment can survive on its own but industry cannot. It needs to protect the environment, and I believe we all believe this and will fight for it very hard. This is proven by the fact that the report from the environment committee was unanimous. Sustainable development is so important to the future of Canada and to our grandchildren that not only should environmental factors be considered, but we need to also consider the social and economic pillars that surround them.

If we go back almost 10 years, then minister John Baird, under the Conservative government, supported a Liberal member's private member's bill regarding the federal sustainability act. The bill was passed, and we followed the guidelines. We had positive results, better than I can say from the current government. The act declares that all government decision-making be reviewed through an environmental, economic, and social lens. I want to stress the social lens and the appropriate balance. That is a bit of a rub.

I had a great working career in the RCMP. I have lived near the energy sector in Alberta and British Columbia since around 1986. I also had the opportunity, nearly 20 years ago, to work directly in the oil and gas sector as a regulator, as an enforcer, for the Province of British Columbia after I retired. I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on in relation to oil and gas exploration in Canada and the way we protect the environment.

Part of my job was to make sure that companies out there were doing their job to protect the environment. I will stand in this House all day long and wave the fact that I think Canada—the provinces of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and even a little has been done in Ontario and Quebec—has the greatest, strongest environmental standards in the world, and we produce the cleanest energy, regardless of what it is, whether it is coal, oil, or gas. We have such strong, stringent regulations that we should be proud of that fact.

Twenty years ago, the B.C. government realized that industry was hampered, government was hampered, the public was hampered, and aboriginal communities were hampered by overregulation. Too many departments, having separate control, were all fighting and vying to do their part to protect the environment and the government and to regulate industry. What did the B.C. government do? Twenty years ago, it realized that it needed to hire one person to oversee it and one person to try to bring it back together, and it did.

If my numbers are correct, we got rid of one-third of the regulations. Industry prospered. We developed a really good working relationship with aboriginal communities. They could understand what was going on and could work with the government and industry because of the way the regulations were modernized and improved.

If we look at this bill, I believe it says that it would require more departments and more agencies to contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy. It would bring the total to more than 90, from the current 26. My God, look back at history, folks. It does not work. We have to modernize it and make it efficient, effective, and understandable so that everyone can work together. If we make it too big, the government cannot control it. If we make it too complicated, industry and the people involved, whether it is on private or aboriginal land, cannot understand it. Here we are with a new bill trying to increase it by over three times. Let us get this thing back to reality.

I am sorry that I am a little scattered. I was told about this about 20 minutes ago, so I came in here and wrote some notes down from what I remembered.

As I said earlier, the environment committee did a fantastic job, and it had a unanimous report on this. Conservative members on the environment and sustainable development committee supported the changes to the FSDS. They wanted to ensure, as did the Liberal and NDP members, that economic, social, and environmental considerations were accounted for by the Government of Canada. They wanted to make sure that happened. They wanted to ensure that the act included measurable targets and enforceability.

Measurable targets and enforceability are so important. We can throw out a handful of rules, but if we cannot enforce them and cannot ever make that number, why put them out there? Make it reasonable for all the people participating, whether it is the aboriginal community, people living in the area, industry, or government. If we all work together and can understand what we are all doing together, we can accomplish a lot together.

My friend from the Northwest Territories understands what I am talking about when I talk about finding an appropriate balance between the environment, the economy, and their lives. We can get everything to work together, but we must make it balanced.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. I have more to say. I could probably have gone on another 10 minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's debate. Does he not agree that with our planet already facing the effects of global change, from wildfires that rage longer and more harshly to thinning ice, there is a need for such legislation to protect our planet and Canada?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, but Canada is protected. We have a good set of rules and regulations in place. I hate to tell you, but we had fires shortly after earth developed. We had natural fires. We are going to continue to have fires. We can do everything you want to stop fires, but fires will start. We have lightning, caused by the weather. We have weather trends. Things dry out some years. Some years they are so wet, we cannot even get into the forest. These things are natural. Can we control them with this? No, we cannot. These are natural things that have been happening over decades, and hundreds and hundreds of years. Fires have always existed. The problem is that man wants to stop the fires. The fires controlled a lot of the environmental problems we have today, such as the pine beetle.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to place their answers and questions through the Chair.

Questions and Comments, the hon. member for Whitby.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have raised this point in the House before. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has said that between 1983 and 2005, Canadians paid about $373 million in insurance costs related to weather-related events. Between 2005 and 2015, that number tripled to $1.7 billion in costs related to wetter, warmer, wilder weather.

Does the hon. member across the way not agree that Canadians are paying exorbitant amounts of money for the costs of weather caused by climate change?

We should be doing something about it. We put in a comprehensive oceans protection plan. We put in a comprehensive plan to ensure that we are charging for pollution. We are taking the steps needed to ensure that those astronomical costs that Canadians are already paying will be reduced.

Does he not agree that this plan, this piece of legislation, will help to contribute to Canadian sustainability now and into the future.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say no. However, the member brings up a very good point. I would like to explain one aspect of what she is talking about. Let us talk about floods. In so many areas in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, governments, whether municipal, provincial, or federal, allow people to build properties, whether residential, industrial, or commercial, on flat plains by rivers. If they had taken the time to perhaps talk to an early pioneer in that area, he probably would have told them that the plain flooded in 1901, in 1896, and in 1932. However, do we listen to him? No we do not. We sit around a table with a bunch of scientists reading a book and coming up with a good, reasoned fact. We should take a common sense approach in the bill, and use people within society, people from the communities, who understand.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead for his contributions on the environment committee. I very much enjoyed the work we did together. We did a great job on the FSDA and FSDS. He spoke to much of that in his speech.

However, I am really confused because we had a unanimous report. I am confused why we are debating today a clause that was agreed in committee and that we worked very hard at in order to ensure that a whole-of-government approach was embedded in the bill. I understand his point about making it very difficult, but if we are going to do sustainability right, everyone needs to be engaged. I want him to explain why we are debating this today and why he wants to change what we did at committee.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, people's minds change. Given a longer time to look at it, we see where the errors and mistakes are, and so we stand up to try to correct those errors and mistakes.

The House resumed from May 24 consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I will describe how our government is taking action to ensure that a clean environment and a strong economy go together, including our support for the global 2030 agenda for sustainable development, and our work with provinces, territories, indigenous people, and international partners to address climate change.

I will go on to discuss how Bill C-57 would support our strong commitment to sustainability and how the proposed changes, including clause 5, would contribute to more effective, inclusive, and accountable sustainable development strategies in the future.

Bill C-57 is about advancing sustainable development in Canada. This is a top priority for our government. We have always maintained that a clean environment and a strong economy can and must go hand in hand in the modern world. The well-being of Canada's future generations depend on it.

We face serious challenges, including the continued threat of global climate change. Canadians are already experiencing the effects of a warming planet, from wildfires that rage longer and harsher than ever before to thinning sea ice in the Arctic to rising sea levels that threaten communities from coast to coast to coast.

Our federal sustainable development strategy demonstrates our commitment to the 2030 agenda, with 13 aspirational goals that are a Canadian reflection of the global sustainable development goals. Its specific medium-term targets, short-term milestones, and actions show how we will implement the 2030 agenda's environmental dimensions over a three-year period.

The amendments to the act would support future strategies that would continue to align the goals and reporting of the federal sustainable development strategy with the 2030 agenda, ensuring that Canadians could see a comprehensive picture of our sustainable development priorities and complementing national action to advance the 2030 agenda. This includes, crucially, amendments to clause 5, which seek to ensure that the federal government strategy reflects the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives in Canada.

We are taking effective action to realize our vision of a clean environment, a strong economy, and a better quality of life for all Canadians. Much is being done, but more progress is needed to meet the challenge of sustainable development and to take advantage of its opportunities.

Bill C-57 would make important improvements to the sustainability approach established by the 2008 Federal Sustainable Development Act, which requires the government to prepare and report on sustainable development strategies. It would make these strategies more effective, inclusive, and accountable, accelerating our progress toward a more sustainable Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity now to share the specific amendments proposed in Bill C-57.

First, the bill proposes a new purpose which clarifies that the focus of the act and the federal sustainable development strategy is sustainable development, not only the environment. It would shift the act's focus to driving action in improving Canadians' quality of life, not just planning and reporting. It would specify that the federal sustainable development strategy must respect Canada's domestic and international obligations. Bill C-57 would also add a number of principles to the act and guide our whole-of-government strategy and the strategies of each federal department and agency, for example, the principle of intergenerational equity, which is clearly at the root of the concept of sustainable development.

Under the current act, all departments or agencies must develop strategies that are consistent with and contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy. Bill C-57 would continue this dynamic as more than 90 federal government organizations would work together and act in a coordinated manner to achieve common goals.

The bill would also support our government's commitment to an inclusive approach to sustainability by strengthening the advisory council on sustainable development. Under clause 5, the number of aboriginal peoples on the council would be increased from three to six, and the council would have a clear mandate to advise on the issue of sustainable development. It also seeks to reflect the diversity of Canadian society by taking into account demographic considerations, such as age and gender, when appointing representatives to the sustainable development advisory council. This would increase the degree to which the council would reflect the diversity of Canadian society and increase transparency.

Finally, and most critical, it would strengthen the government's accountability for achieving concrete, meaningful, sustainable development results.

For the government to be held accountable, we need strong targets, targets that are measurable and include a clear time frame for their achievement. Bill C-57 proposes to ensure that future strategies will continue to clearly set out what the government aims to achieve and when. This will enable Canadians to closely track whether the government has met its commitments.

Taking into account these improvements, how will Bill C-57 support greater progress toward our vision for sustainable development in Canada? Quite simply, through better sustainable development strategies that focus on results and reflect the priorities of Canadians.

What does this mean in practice? It means that future strategies will continue to include goals and targets that will take into account that our efforts today will affect the quality of life of Canadians tomorrow. It means that ministers and organizations across the federal government, more than ever before, will contribute to developing sustainable development strategies, and will work together with our partners to put them into action. It also means that future strategies will benefit from a clear shared understanding of the breadth of actions that will contribute to achieving sustainable development, not only protecting the environment but also protecting health, promoting equity, and conserving cultural heritage.

Future strategies will also continue to benefit from engagement with indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians. We saw the importance of this in the development of the current federal sustainable development strategy. Comments received through public consultations helped make our plan more aspirational, more measurable, and more inclusive.

Bill C-57 is important and significant legislation that supports our government's strong commitment to sustainable development. It would improve all aspects of the government's sustainable development approach, from developing and consulting on our sustainable development strategies to implementing them to achieving and reporting on results.

I would like to once again thank the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for their ideas, their commitment, and their collaboration. As I have described, their work has resulted in significant improvements to Bill C-57. With their contributions, the bill would provide a more effective and inclusive framework for advancing sustainable development in Canada.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to Bill C-57 and the provisions in it that require various federal departments to come up with their sustainable development plans and so forth and the fact that the Liberal government has now purchased the Kinder Morgan pipeline, I tried to get an answer to this from the Minister of Environment earlier. However, I would like to hear if the parliamentary secretary can help me out.

Under the provisions of Bill C-57, which federal department is now going to be responsible for the Kinder Morgan pipeline and how on earth is it going to provide a reasonable sustainable development strategy when this project's environmental concerns make a mockery of the government's climate change commitments?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, regrettably, I disagree with my hon. colleague's characterization of this government's support and investment in the Trans Mountain pipeline. As our government and the Prime Minister have stated on numerous occasions, this pipeline is in the national interest. The reason it is in the national interest is that it will support thousands of jobs in Alberta and British Columbia and knock-on positive employment in many other provinces right across the country.

With respect to the member's specific question as to how Bill C-57 will promote the coordination of this project, and many other projects which will encourage sustainable development, as I said in my remarks, the bill fosters a whole-of-government approach. It will extend the coverage of the federal sustainable development from 26 to more than 90 departments and agencies so there is a coordinated approach to ensure the economy and the environment go together.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know I am hearing a lot of conversation that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, that the government is doing this because it cares about the next generation. Therefore, my question is on fiscal accountability. It seems like the party across from us has no problem leaving billions of dollars of deficit to the next generation. Do the Liberals care about that as well? I agree we need to leave our environment to our children, and I would like your comments on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will not give you my comments. Unfortunately, I just want to remind the member that she is to address the questions to the Chair.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, without question, this is a government that believes in creating economic prosperity by growing the middle class. Our record on that is second to none. We have created hundreds of thousands of jobs since taking office. We have seen record unemployment since taking office. We will continue to drive that kind of growth from the middle class out by supporting projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Regrettably, on the other side of the aisle, what we see are two opposition parties that have been completely polarized by taking a singular approach, either by supporting the economy without giving consideration to the environment or vice versa.

This is a government that understands the importance of striking that balance. This project is in the national interest. It will drive jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, and it will ensure that we are protecting the environment by taking into consideration sustainability, which is at the core of what Bill C-57 would accomplish.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I fail to see the sustainability part of this project. If we are in fact going to be leaving a planet for future generations, with all the evidence of climate change that exists, I fail to see how this member can make the connection.

With regard to economic opportunities, there are now more Canadians employed in alternative and renewable energy sectors than there are in oil and gas. We are very much in favour of economic development, but it has to be done in an environmentally sustainable manner.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was more of a comment than a question, but I take the remark about the need to invest in renewable, green tech jobs as well as right across the sector.

It is thanks to the government's investments in green tech, in sustainable development, which Bill C-57 would attempt to accomplish, and will accomplish once passed into law, that we are seeing that job growth.

Let me specifically answer what I think was implied in this remarks. What Bill C-57 would do, among other things, is make decision-making more transparent. It would promote coordinated action across all of government. It would respect Canada's domestic and international obligations, including COP21.

That is how the government will ensure that the economy and the environment are balanced, will go together, and will be reconciled so that we can grow the economy for the middle class and continue to see our prosperity grow for future generations.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I want to focus on what federal departments and agencies are doing to build a more sustainable Canada. First, I will talk about how departmental action is supporting the government's vision for sustainable development. I will then talk about the concrete measures that departments and agencies are adopting as part of their own mandates, to ensure that Canada becomes greener and more sustainable. Lastly, I will talk briefly about how departments and agencies are fulfilling the shared commitment to lead by example by lowering the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions.

I would first like to explain how departments' actions fit into our overall sustainable development plan. In October 2016, we introduced the 2016-19 federal sustainable development strategy, which contains ambitious long-term objectives, medium-term objectives, and short-term objectives to support our vision for sustainability. We want to make Canada one of the greenest countries in the world where quality of life is continuously improving.

The strategy also includes action plans, major priorities for sustainability, and specific ways in which the government contributes to sustainable development outcomes, from working with partners on climate change, to investing in clean technologies, to protecting Canada's lands and oceans.

It is the strongest strategy ever. Introducing it in October 2016 was the very first step. Now our focus is on implementing it to achieve real results for Canadians. That means individual departments and agencies must take action to achieve our goals. Under the Federal Sustainable Development Act, 26 departments and agencies must prepare sustainable development strategies that have their own specific objectives and plans and that comply with and contribute to our overarching federal strategy.

Last October, our government met that requirement, tabling strategies for the 26 departments and agencies named in the act. We also introduced strategies for a number of organizations that are not bound by the act but have an important role to play in sustainable development, such as Infrastructure Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Departmental strategies complement the high-level action plans presented in the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. They add substance and detail to our plan, setting out the concrete commitments that will help us realize our sustainable development vision.

Moving from an aspirational, high-level strategy to specific commitments is an important accomplishment, and I want to thank and congratulate all of my colleagues who are working to implement the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. With their diverse mandates, each department and agency has its own unique role to play.

I want to stress that reducing the government’s own environmental footprint is just one part of our strategy, and most departments are going far beyond greening their operations.

Sustainable development is also broader than the environment alone, and our departmental strategies reflect this. Environmentally focused organizations like Environment and Climate Change Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada make important contributions to implementing our strategy.

The same goes for departments with strong social and economic mandates, such as Health Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

I would now like to talk specifically about a few of the actions these departments are taking to support our government's sustainable development goals. Several departments and federal organizations are contributing to our federal strategy goal of effective action on climate change, one of the most pressing challenges of our time.

Here are just a few of the actions they are taking. Environment and Climate Change Canada is working to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity units and advancing the use of carbon pricing. Global Affairs Canada is delivering on Canada's pledge to provide $2.65 billion in climate-financing to support developing countries' transition to low-carbon, climate-resilient economies. Also, Natural Resources Canada is leading Canada's climate change adaptation platform, a national forum that brings together key groups in Canada to collaborate on climate change adaptation priorities.

Protecting and enhancing Canada's ecosystems is also essential to meeting the goals and targets of the federal sustainable development strategy and realizing our vision of a greener Canada. Eight organizations contribute to our goal of lands and forests that support biodiversity and provide a variety of ecosystem services for generations to come. Six of those organizations contribute to ensuring that coasts and oceans support healthy, resilient, and productive ecosystems, while four ensure clean and healthy lakes and rivers that support economic prosperity and the well-being of Canadians.

I see that I do not have much time left, but I feel it is very important to emphasize that sustainable development is also about generating clean economic growth, harnessing innovation and investing in clean technology. That means Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has an important role in implementing the federal sustainable development strategy. I want to highlight a priority that all departments and agencies share. When we tabled the 2016-2019 federal sustainable development strategy, we committed to leading by example by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations, to reducing federal emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030 or earlier. We recently announced an ambitious new target to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. All departments and agencies are taking action to increase the energy efficiency of their buildings, modernize their fleets, implement green procurement and sustainable travel practices, and increase their resilience to climate change.

In conclusion, as I have described, our government moved from intention to action by tabling departmental sustainable development strategies. These strategies demonstrate our government's whole-of-government approach. Bill C-57 will build our whole-of-government approach by applying the Federal Sustainable Development Act to more than 90 federal organizations, ensuring that they contribute to developing the strategy and its progress reports and requiring them to report annually on results. We look forward to reporting back to Canadians and parliamentarians on our sustainable development commitments. We also look forward to continuing to advance sustainability under the federal sustainable development strategy.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, in whose constituency I happen to live, that the great Winston Churchill said that however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

What I hear from the government in terms of the Federal Sustainable Development Act is primarily of civil servants sending emails to each other. The lack of action on the ground dealing with real environmental issues is the tragedy of the current government. Let me give some specific examples.

I was just in the Maritimes, in particular, in Miramichi in New Brunswick. People and communities are absolutely devastated by the plight of the Atlantic salmon, a fish that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the recreational fishery of many communities. It supports 4,000 jobs. When I was on the fisheries committee, it produced a unanimous report with very detailed recommendations to rehabilitate those stocks. The current government has done absolutely nothing, and the people I have met with regarding the Atlantic salmon were scathing in their criticism of DFO and what it is not doing to conserve this very important fish.

Water quality in the Great Lakes continues to deteriorate. Under our previous government, we implemented a number of programs under the national conservation plan that the current government has cancelled.

Wetlands are being lost at a furious rate. The Liberals are doing nothing about that.

Regarding the Pacific salmon stocks, many stocks are in deep trouble. The chinook fishery has been closed on the west coast. I could go on and on.

Therefore, all the fine words by my colleague across the way mean nothing to people and communities that are affected by the environmental degradation the current government is completely ignoring. Why are the Liberals ignoring these problems?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. Our government is taking these issues into account. We address them in our federal sustainable development strategy.

We are moving forward. For example, Environment and Climate Change Canada is working with its partners in order to protect ecosystems like the Great Lakes, which my colleague mentioned. The department is going even further by working with its partners to protect the St. Lawrence River, the St. Lawrence estuary, Lake Winnipeg, and other major watersheds across Canada.

I believe this illustrates our approach quite well. We have developed a strategy. We are having discussions with our partners. We have allocated resources, including financial resources, to keep our promises. We are now taking action in partnership with key stakeholders, the provinces, and all those interested in promoting a more sustainable and healthier environment in Canada.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was mention of the Great Lakes and, of course, the ecosystem surrounding them. Could the presenter speak a bit about the most recent announcement by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change with respect to the Lake Erie action plan, and not only the plan to sustain the Lake Erie ecosystem but also what the minister has presented to ensure that what surrounds the Lake Erie ecosystem, such as the wetlands and other areas that contribute to a better and cleaner future for the Great Lakes, is addressed?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Niagara Peninsula knows very well the importance of protecting the Great Lakes and the water basins around them. As he mentioned in his question, I know that the member has worked hard on this and certainly talks a lot about it in our caucus. We have seen the action he has taken to ensure that we are protecting not only the Great Lakes but also the entire basin that contributes to them. We know that if we have a healthy watershed surrounding the lakes, then we will have healthier lakes. That is precisely why that is so very important.

I know that the good work the member is doing in Niagara will continue well beyond his mandate. I certainly know that my hon. colleague will be very proud of the work he has done there and the brighter legacy he is leaving his constituents and the people of Canada who depend, in that growing region of Niagara, upon clean water and a clean watershed. I could speak much longer on that, but let me just once again salute the work of my hon. colleague.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to stand and discuss the concept of sustainable development under the Federal Sustainable Development Act..

What is often lost to people is that sustainable development is actually a development concept. The concept was popularized by the Brundtland commission report, Our Common Future, published in 1986. What spawned that report was the deep frustration about how environmental policy was being done in the world. The assumption was that economic development was always at the expense of the environment, which is clearly not true.

Also, what the Brundtland commission concluded is that poverty causes environmental degradation. When we have economies that are not firing on all cylinders, when we do not have innovation, and when we do not have free markets or free trade, the end result is environmental degradation.

In 1992, the Earth Summit happened in Rio. I was there as part of the Canadian delegation. The message from the Earth Summit, loud and clear, was that ending poverty was the best thing the world could do for the environment.

Again, as a true free market Conservative, it is very clear to me that free markets, free trade, and a thriving innovation sector create the conditions for wealth production and environmental protection. It is no secret that advanced industrial societies have the best environmental quality. Now the Liberals on the other side always talk about the environment and the economy going together, but in an advanced industrial society, the way they see it is backwards.

In an advanced industrial society, wealth creation is absolutely necessary for environmental conservation. It is wealthy societies that make the investments in environmental protection. We have many northern and remote communities, for example, that live in pristine environments. There is no industrial development. The land is much as it has been for eons and eons, yet those communities have terrible economies and very difficult social problems. The pristine environment around them does not generate the wealth they need to sustain their societies.

An economist named Kuznets came up with a concept of looking at per capita income in a country and environmental quality, for example. He did a unique analysis of sulphur dioxide. In the early 1900s, sulphur dioxide was being belched out of coal-fired power plants at a furious rate that caused the great smogs. People said they did not care about the environment. The whole point was to industrialize and to use those power plants to power an ever-growing society.

What happened in the early seventies, however, is that people said that enough was enough, because of acid rain and air pollution. They simply could not put up with that. Society changed dramatically. Technology was developed to put scrubbers in coal-fired power plants. Starting in the 1970s, sulphur dioxide emissions declined dramatically in the United States as it got richer and richer.

I am not one of those people who talks about balancing the environment and the economy. Quite frankly, there is no balance. A wealthy society creates a better environment. Society gets wealthier and the environment improves. The term “balance” implies it is a zero sum game and that economic development is at the expense of the environment. That is simply not the case. Actually, the greenest government ever in Canada was that of former Brian Mulroney in the eighties. In fact, he was awarded the prize of being the greenest prime minister in Canadian history.

One thing the Mulroney government did in Canada, an example of a rich society, was to implement pulp and paper effluent regulations requiring every pulp and paper plant in Canada to build a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment plant. I happen, in a previous life, to have run one of those wastewater treatment plants. Basically, what those plants did was to turn a toxic effluent into effluent that a person could drink.

Only rich societies do those kinds of things. We put scrubbers on smoke stacks, as I said a minute ago. In rich societies, we also set aside vast tracks of land as parks. I happen to live next to Riding Mountain National Park. It has great timber and soils, all the makings of a piece of land that could be developed for forestry or agriculture, yet we as a rich society have decided that Riding Mountain National Park shall remain in its natural state. That is a good thing, but again, wealthy societies are the ones that do that.

That is something the Liberal government has completely forgotten. The Liberals are doing their best to kill Canada's natural resource economy, which is 20% of our economy. The way they are killing the natural resource economy is with process after process. The just-announced purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline by the Liberal government is testament to the failure of its environmental policies.

We lost energy east. We lost the Petronas project. We lost northern gateway. In addition to the Kinder Morgan project, these would have produced thousands and thousands of jobs, especially in eastern Canada. I am talking about energy east right now and the absurd situation of Canada importing foreign oil for our eastern refineries when we produce enough raw material to supply those refineries ourselves. Only a Liberal would think that is a good thing. I hate to break it to the government, but process does not improve the environment. Actual work on the ground does.

The other thing that is implied by the Liberals and the NDP all the time is that somehow industry is either not doing a good job, or always wanting to skirt environmental regulations. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of our industrial projects these days are built with the highest environmental standards from day one. I saw it in person on the ground when I was doing environmental monitoring work in the oil sands. The care taken by energy companies and contractors with environmental protection was something to see. Everyone was trained in spill response. All of the technology was in place. Spill kits were everywhere. All of the proper environmental protocols were followed. In terms of the plants and the mines, all of the pollution control devices were world class.

As I said earlier, environmental results are critical. Under our government the environment improved significantly. Sulphur dioxide went down, nitrous oxide went down, and the amount of land devoted to parkland increased dramatically. Over 800,000 acres of extremely valuable land was secured under the national area conservation plan.

Contrast that with what is happening under the current government. I mentioned earlier the plight of the Atlantic salmon. I was in New Brunswick where people are devastated by the near collapse of the Atlantic salmon stocks. Their anger at DFO almost knows no bounds. They are being ignored by the government. The Atlantic salmon was an example of sustainable development, a sustainable fishery that sustained communities with 4,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of income, and yet the government is ignoring the unanimous report of the fisheries committee. As a result, the Atlantic is in deep trouble.

Again, the Liberals think that process is results. Process does not produce results. Doing environmental conservation and environmental remediation and fish stock enhancement on the ground produces real environmental results. When I hear about the Federal Sustainable Development Act, I know it is about bureaucrats sending emails to themselves.

I would also note with regard to the Liberals' emphasis on process that in hearings before our environment committee on the impact assessment act, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that Canada has a “toxic regulatory environment”. I guess that is why the Liberals are trying to buy their way out of it with the purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

The government is deliberately destroying Canada's natural resource industries and the communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, that depend on them. This will have serious consequences for Canada's economy.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, as the world moves toward meeting the sustainable development goals in agenda 2030, Canada needs to be one of the players who take an active leadership role in ensuring that no one gets left behind. As I look at the bill and the work the committee has done, as well as the work our government has done over the last couple of years, I can see that of the 17 goals, our government has put a lot of work, domestically, into ensuring that there is no poverty, into gender equality, and into sustainable action on climate change and life under water, and doing so in partnership with the provinces and territories.

I know the hon. member is quite versed in this particular area and has a high level of expertise. Has he not seen the government do tremendous work toward sustainable development and ensuring that we meet the sustainable development goals and the objectives of agenda 2030?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada started showing leadership in sustainable development under the provincial government of Gary Filmon and the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, back in the late 1980s. We did it this way. Prime Minister Mulroney announced at the United Nations that Canada was going to be a leader in sustainable development and that we were going to create the International Institute for Sustainable Development, based in Winnipeg. I was very fortunate to be on the founding board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. That institute is recognized around the world for its work.

The member talked about poverty reduction. As someone once said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.” I think it was Yogi Berra. The government takes great pride in virtue signalling about its concern for our indigenous people. I am going to make a prediction right now that after the term of this government, and this is probably the last term, if one looks at the social and economic indicators in our indigenous communities from the first day the Liberals took office to their very last day in office, not a single indicator will have improved. They can take that prediction to the bank.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge my colleague on that assertion. Goal number one is no poverty. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which supports nine out of 10 families and will lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. We are on target for 2021 to ensure that our indigenous population has no boil water advisories and has access to clean water, which is goal number six of the sustainable development goals. I could go on and talk about a number of different initiatives we have taken within the indigenous file to ensure our obligation and responsibility, to ensure that the rights of indigenous people are protected, and to ensure that they have the quality of life they deserve in this country.

Therefore, I will challenge the assertion the member just made, because we are well on track to do a lot of the initiatives that the previous government did not even bother with.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly stand by my assertion that not a single socio-economic indicator in indigenous communities will have improved after the term of the Liberal government. Let us just look at the numbers when the final term of the government is over.

The member talked about indigenous communities. Let us take Baker Lake, for example. Agnico Eagle built a gold mine at Baker Lake. Does the member know what the unemployment rate at Baker Lake is? It is zero.

Near Yellowknife, a number of aboriginal communities participate in a diamond mining industry. At committee, I asked the head of the Mining Association of Canada specifically about the socio-economic indicators in those communities. More young people are going to secondary education. There is a spring in their step. They are happy to have jobs.

Chief Ernie Crey, a strong supporter of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, talked about the excitement his young people were feeling about the potential of getting trained for pipeline jobs, and how devastated they would be if this pipeline does not go through.

Again, the best route to self-sufficiency is economic development and jobs. We need to get natural resources developed near our indigenous communities so they can all benefit and better their lives.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-57, the clean growth strategy that the government is bringing forward to the House. I am also pleased to join my colleagues on this side of the House to give support to the bill and I look forward to its passage, after second reading being 244 to zero and after the unanimous decision at committee level.

Our government is committed to protecting the environment, as well as building a clean growth strategy that benefits the middle class and every part of the Canadian economy. Canadians want an ambitious action plan on climate change, at the same time as economic growth and ensuring a good future for our children and our grandchildren. This is a huge opportunity, and we are extremely excited about this nation's future.

If we look at countries around the world, including Canada, we see that many have come to the same conclusions as we have here today. In China, it is estimated that by 2040, the cost of generating electricity from new solar cells will be lower than the projected operating costs of existing coal-fired power plants. In 2017, Germany generated 36% of its electricity with clean energy. Last year, our southern neighbours saw solar and wind industries create jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy. In fact, they have twice as many solar jobs as coal jobs. Finally, here in our great nation, wind energy in Prince Edward Island reduces its need for energy from outside the province. P.E.I. has no sources of oil, natural gas, or other fuels for traditional forms of electricity.

As the world's economies are shifting toward cleaner and more sustainable growth, it is essential that Canada remain competitive on the world stage.

Sustainable development includes supporting people and the nation toward a cleaner economy, which will help position Canada to take advantage of opportunities in the new global economy by diversifying our economy and opening up access to new marks while reducing emissions and generating good jobs for all Canadians.

Sustainable development includes clean technologies, which are a key component of our government's approach to promoting sustainable economic growth. I want to emphasize the word “sustainable”. It is not just about economic growth, but economic growth that is done right and sustainably.

Among many things, sustainable development means tackling climate change. Canada was one of almost 200 countries that committed to the Paris Agreement. We agreed to take steps to support the transition to a low-carbon economy and limit the global temperature increase to less than 2° Celsius.

Together with our provincial and territorial partners, we developed a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which includes our approach to pricing carbon pollution and measures to achieve reductions across all sectors of our economy. We see carbon pricing as a key driver for technological innovation and helping Canada to transition to a low-carbon economy, because a carbon price creates a continuous incentive to develop innovative and inexpensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A transition to a lower-carbon future will also require the involvement of the private sector to help increase the supply from alternative sources of energy, meet increasing demands while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, leverage investments in clean energy, improve energy interconnection, and ensure a smooth transition as Canada reduces its reliance on coal.

Our goal is to make Canada a world leader in green technology and clean innovation. That is where the future lies: the knowledge economy, where Canadians are applying their talents to solve collective challenges that face each and every one of us throughout this great nation.

Let me remind my hon. colleagues about some important steps this government has taken to encourage and support clean technology in Canada.

In 2016, more than $1 billion was announced for such things as support for research and development; the deployment of infrastructure for alternative transportation fuels, including charging infrastructure for electric vehicles and natural gas and hydrogen refuelling stations; tax incentives for the generation of clean energy; and, finally, new money for Canada research chairs at Canada's leading universities.

In 2016, environmental and clean technology activities accounted for 3.1% of Canada's gross domestic product, or $59.3 billion. In terms of employment, an estimated 274,000 jobs were attributed to environmental and clean technology activity in 2016 alone. These jobs represent 1.5% of jobs in the Canadian economy, which is 4.5% higher than in 2007.

The two largest components of the environmental and clean technology gross domestic product are clean electricity, at 43%, and waste management, at 12%. In 2017, we continued the support for clean technology by announcing almost $1.4 billion in new financing to be made available to help Canada's clean technology firms grow and expand. We also announced our plan to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, which are a barrier to investment in clean energy.

More recently, we announced historic investments, including the low-carbon economy fund and the investing in Canada plan, which support projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and generating clean growth. Building on these commitments, budget 2018 focused on enhancing the role of federal science for the public good by proposing $2.8 billion to renew federal laboratories. These investments contribute, in part, to achieving Canada's pledge to double funding for clean energy deployment from $387 million in fiscal year 2014-15 to $775 million in 2020. In fiscal year 2015-16 alone, we increased clean energy research and development funding by 24% over the previous year.

I look forward to members of the House supporting this legislation. As I stated, 244 members of the House voted unanimously to move forward to third reading, and there was a unanimous decision to move forward to third reading from the committee. I am more than happy to take questions from the opposition, as well as from the third party.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, as the world moves toward meeting the targets of the sustainable development goals, we have to take leadership. I wonder if my colleague could expand on some of the work we have done to achieve those goals. I will give him some examples.

Goal 5 is gender equality. For the first time, we saw a budget that had a gender statement and gender-based analysis. Goal 1 and goal 2 are no poverty and zero hunger. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which will lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. Goal 6 is clean water and sanitation. In my previous comments, I mentioned our work in indigenous communities around getting rid of boil water advisories, which we are on track to do in the coming years.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could talk a little more about how the government has been working over the last couple of years to ensure that we are leaders in meeting the sustainable development goals.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member outlined a lot of what we have done on this file in terms of benefiting Canadians not only today but well into the future.

However, I want to add green infrastructure, public transit, smart grids, energy-efficient buildings, and electric vehicle infrastructure. The federal government aims to help mainstream innovation in clean technologies, working with our institutions and working with our partners as well as investing in water and wastewater projects in indigenous communities. The list goes on in terms of our partnerships with municipalities.

Our biggest achievement to date is the fact that we are benefiting and investing in our future and our children. We are ensuring that we are taking responsibility today for a better tomorrow. We are leading by example, not only by giving example to others but also by leading by example from others.

Let us make no mistake about it: not only are we doing this as a government here in Ottawa, but we are also working in partnership with our partners and municipalities and schools. We are working with children as well as young adults to ensure that they are part of their future, and we are also taking responsibilities and setting examples as a federal government.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague always speaks very passionately about infrastructure projects. I had the opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where we had some good discussions.

He said that he likes working with the municipalities and other levels of government, but I am wondering what he thinks about the government's decision not to work with all of the parties in the House on Bill C-57 and to move a motion to cut members' speaking time on a file where the input and opinions of everyone in the House are very important. It is true that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, but at the same time, we all have the right to speak.

Does he think that muzzling opposition members with regard to Bill C-57 is what co-operation is all about?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated working with the member opposite on many opportunities. I find it interesting that when I first started speaking, there were only four people in the House on the opposite side, two from one party and two from the other—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members are not supposed to make reference to either the presence or absence of members in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member has a point. Does the hon. member for Niagara Centre wish to withdraw that comment?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it.

At second reading, 244 members supported this legislation unanimously in this House, and support was unanimous as well at the standing committee. Again, the legislation was unanimously supported in the House. We have had ample debate time. We have had ample support. We have ample participation from members of all parties. Once again, as I mentioned earlier, I look forward to this legislation passing with the unanimous support of the members of the House.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-57. This bill is a mixed bag, in that does not go far enough and fails to consider several elements included in MP John Godfrey's original bill from 2007, which was subsequently watered down.

Once again, the work is only half done, as the bill did not consider the recommendations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It did not even consider the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which wanted to go much further on certain issues, especially creation. Back in 2007, it was Mr. Godfrey's idea to create a real environment commissioner position that would be independent of the Auditor General's office and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Now, some kind of office of sustainable development is going to be created within Environment and Climate Change Canada. I doubt that office will be able to give good advice, because it is like making the inspector part of the company he or she is supposed to inspect. I do not quite see how that would work. Once again, we see another so-called solution that does not really get to the root of the problem. The government is not making the bravest and most useful decisions possible.

I will come back to Bill C-57 in a few minutes because it is basically a bill that refers to the environment, sustainable development, and the United Nations' 17 sustainable development goals, which we are far from meeting. I will come back to that when I speak about the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which was tabled recently.

I will take this opportunity to point out what a mind-boggling day this has been. I do not understand this shocking and unexpected news: the Liberal government has decided to become the owner of a pipeline that will transport an extremely dangerous substance. If there is a spill on the Pacific coast, it will be extremely difficult to clean up because this substance sinks rather than floats like many other substances derived from fossil fuels.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada said that by voting Liberal we would be voting for real change: Canada would be back on the international scene, the Liberals would champion the fight against climate change, and they would turn the page on the dark days of the Harper and Conservative regime. However, the Liberal Party is going further than Stephen Harper dared to go. The Conservatives never purchased a pipeline. That was not in the Liberal platform and the Liberals did not say one word about it in 2015. Unless I am mistaken, I did not hear the Prime Minister say, during the election campaign, that if we voted for him, he would take $4.5 billion of our money and buy a pipeline.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet]

I do not remember that.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

The whip does not remember, and neither do I, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think that is what he told voters, which is why people are right to feel betrayed today. They are right to be angry, because the government is going to use their money to buy a pipeline that will outgrow its usefulness in 20 or 30 years. Who is going to buy that back from us? The rest of the world will have completed the just energy transition and will have created good jobs in renewable energy. We will be coming to the international market saying that we put $4.5 billion into this pipeline and it would be great if someone could buy it back from us, because we have no use for it.

Kinder Morgan estimates that the finished pipeline will require about 440 permanent employees to keep it running, with all of the associated risks. On top of this, you have provincial jurisdictions, first nations treaties, social acceptability, and our greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.

Kinder Morgan estimates that, once the pipeline is built, it could generate 3,000 direct and indirect jobs. If you divide $4.5 billion by 3,000 jobs, that gives you $1.8 million per job created. I guarantee that if you gave me $1.8 million, I would be able to create more than one job. The $4.5 billion is not even the end of it, since this figure would simply cover the existing equipment. There is still no talk of how much the expansion could cost.

The aim is to be able to transport three times as many barrels a day. I do not know how we will be able to do that and still respect the Paris Agreement and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We would have to remove millions of cars from the road to perhaps be able to achieve a balance, because the government has absolutely no plan. On the contrary, it is coming to the rescue of a Texas company that was clearly unable to take the risk associated with the expansion and development of the pipeline. Since it does not want to take that risk, it decided to place it squarely on Canadian taxpayers’ shoulders. This is outrageous and unacceptable.

Another thing we need to consider is that the government will be paying $4.5 billion of our money to purchase a pipeline that already exists. Kinder Morgan paid $550 million to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline in 2007. Eleven years later, we are buying it for nine times that, and that is not even the final bill.

I think that when most people in every one of our ridings find out, they will be angry with the Liberal government because the decision makes no sense. The government is spending a considerable amount of money when it should be making the transition to other sources of energy and investing in energies and jobs of the future. Look at what is going on in Germany, Denmark, Spain, and the Netherlands. We in Canada are behind. We are taking a bunch of public funds, Canadians’ money, and investing it in something that has no future and that is the result of extreme short-sightedness.

The oil will not even be refined in Canada. It will probably be sent to China. It is simply an export pipeline. It does not even create value for the Canadian economy. Billions of dollars are going to be invested in this project.

The Minister of Finance said that the government was going to find private partners to pay for the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. They may not be interested, especially if they know that the Liberal government is standing there with its chequebook out asking, “How much? No problem. Will that be $5 billion, $6 billion, or $7 billion?” Today we are talking about $4.5 billion, but it will probably end up being more like $12 billion. Is this really the best use we can make of $12 billion?

We have a responsibility to the world, and we could be a leader in investments in technologies of the future, in such areas as wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, and tidal flows. There are all sorts of things we could do. Instead of that, we have a bill that is neither here nor there, and a decision by the Liberal finance minister that goes completely against all of its goals. I think that Quebeckers and other Canadians must be aware of that. They are the ones who will be paying the price. They will pay the price out of their own pockets, with their own money, and they will also pay the price because the story is not over yet.

The indigenous peoples affected will go to court and ask for an injunction. The government of British Columbia will not take this lying down, either. It will want to defend its jurisdiction. Not only will the court battle go on forever, but this is a ridiculous expense, and we are missing an opportunity to invest in economies and energies of the future.

I am convinced that, today, in Kinder Morgan’s offices, they are rolling in the aisles, passing out the champagne, scotch and cigars. They must be having one heck of a party. They have just been given $4.5 billion, and they are taking absolutely no financial risk. They are not the ones who will have to deal with the legal problems or the spills. They are not the ones who will have to clean up the ocean. They have washed their hands of the whole affair.

It is over. Their work is done. They will be able to give their shareholders gifts and dividends, all paid for by Quebeckers and other Canadians. I think it is absolutely unacceptable. It goes against everything the Liberal government keeps saying about sustainable development.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57 would basically mandate that various federal departments come up with sustainability plans, and it would extend the reach. I have tried to ask the Liberal government on a couple of occasions which particular federal department is now going to be in charge of Kinder Morgan, and how on earth that federal department is going to be able to release a sustainable plan that will bear the scrutiny of scientific consensus.

Despite the way our planet is going and despite this being 2018, we are investing in expanding a diluted bitumen pipeline and not even getting the value out of the product, as my colleague mentioned in his speech. We are going after bottom-barrel, basement prices. We are not looking toward the future.

I would like my friend to comment on the Liberals' plan of action and how, with all of the evidence out there, this project flies in the face of sustainability and flies in the face of what Bill C-57 purports to do.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague from British Columbia for his question and for having shared his concerns.

It is a shame to have a hypocritical government when it comes to sustainable development and the environment. We no longer have a minister of the environment and climate change, we have a minister of the environment and pipelines. It is a shame that the government is betraying Canadians’ trust. It does not take the environment seriously, and it is not doing its share by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If we do not manage to go carbon neutral by 2030 or 2050 and the average temperature of the planet increases by more than 2%, we are in for monumental and catastrophic consequences. That is when it will cost us billions of dollars, not only because of the loss of ecosystems and species, but because of extreme weather phenomena. There will be more floods and more forest fires. This is an extremely serious matter. It is our greatest responsibility here in the House as representatives of Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth and moving in the wrong direction.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, one of the principles of this particular piece of legislation is to ensure that not only do we meet the sustainable development goals as a government and as a country but that we do it in very particular ways, ensuring that there is intergenerational equity that polluters pay. We introduced a price on pollution. We have a comprehensive oceans protection plan. We have introduced measures to reduce poverty.

We are certainly hoping that the hon. member will support this piece of legislation. I personally think the government has done a really good job in meeting some of these goals, and we have more to do. I am pretty sure I know his answer from what the hon. member was saying, but what are his thoughts on that?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. She probably wants to hear me say that the Liberals have made a few good decisions and that they have taken positive actions. When that is true, I try to acknowledge it as best I can, but when it is not enough, it is not enough.

I invite my colleague to read the Commissioner of the Environment’s reports. In last year’s report, she estimated that Canada will not achieve its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2030, and that it will miss the boat. The United Nations and the OECD agree.

Obviously, she should also read the Commissioner of the Environment’s report for this year, which contains the United Nations’ 17 sustainable development goals. Here again, the Commissioner says that the government’s efforts are insufficient to achieve these goals, and that she is extremely concerned.

Once again, the words are there, but nothing is being done to achieve the desired outcomes.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address my hon. colleagues here in the House today. I would like to speak about the principles of sustainable development and Bill C-57 and how those will help advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy.

Let me start with a bit of history. In 1993, the General Assembly of the United Nations established the World Commission on Environment and Development, which was chaired by then Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. In 1987, the commission published Our Common Future, known as the Brundtland report. The report put sustainable development on the global agenda. It also coined and defined its meaning, as follows:

Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That is often referred to as the standard definition of “sustainable development”, and indeed, that is how sustainable development is defined in our current Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The Brundtland report paved the way for an unprecedented 1992 United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, better known as the Earth Summit. I want to make a special point of noting that it was the late Maurice Strong, a distinguished Canadian, who led the organization of that event.

The Earth Summit brought together more countries and heads of state than any previous event. It established enduring and lasting mechanisms for international co-operation, following through on Gro Harlem Brundtland's vision of a sustainable future.

Among these important agreements were the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and the development of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Canada was there. We supported the 1992 Rio declaration, and we have championed sustainable development since that time.

In 1995, following Rio, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to create a commissioner for sustainable development. Since 1997, government departments have been required to produce sustainable development strategies, in compliance with the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act.

In 2008, under the leadership of the Hon. John Godfrey, his private member's bill, Bill C-474, passed and became law as the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The act provides a legal framework for developing and implementing a federal sustainable development strategy every three years. It also requires 26 departments and agencies to prepare their own sustainable development strategies that comply with and contribute to the federal strategy.

Let us move forward to 2015, which was a watershed year for sustainable development globally. In September, Canada was among 193 countries to adopt the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The 2030 agenda set out a global framework of action for people, the planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership, with the ultimate goal of eradicating poverty and ensuring that no one is left behind. The 17 sustainable development goals and their 169 associated targets built on the previous millennium development goals. They were universally applicable and fully integrated social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Just a few months later, in December of 2015, Canada was among the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which adopted the historic Paris agreement.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act is part of a legacy that began with the Brundtland report and the Earth Summit and that is still relevant today as we advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy. It provides the framework to develop and implement the federal sustainable development strategy, a guide to the Government of Canada's environmental sustainability priorities.

The most recent strategy for the period from 2016 to 2019 was tabled in the House on October 6, 2016. It sets out 13 long-term aspirational goals. In response to a recommendation of the standing committee, the strategy's goals are Canada's reflection of the United Nations' sustainable development goals, with a focus on the environmental dimensions.

We are continuing to move forward to improve what we are already doing. Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, seeks to strengthen our commitment to sustainable development, further building on the Brundtland Report and Rio as well as on the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals and the Paris agreement.

As in the past, principles have been the foundation of all our sustainable development commitments, and today I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues about the principles we are proposing in Bill C-57, principles our government believes will strengthen the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I also want to acknowledge the important work of our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, who, in their June 2016 report on the Federal Sustainable Development Act, highlighted the importance of modernizing our sustainable development principles.

Bill C-57 proposes to include the principles of intergenerational equity, polluter pays, internalization of costs, openness and transparency, involving indigenous people, collaboration, and results and delivery.

The principle of intergenerational equity is the essence of sustainable development. It is the recognition that the decisions we make are not just about today and about us but about the future and those who will be here after us.

The principles of polluter pays and the internalization of costs reflect our understanding that we need to move beyond conventional ways of thinking. To be sustainable, economic growth must take into account the damages imposed on the environment. Polluter pays means that those who generate pollution must bear the cost. Internalization of costs means that goods and services should reflect all costs they generate for society, from their design to consumption to final disposal.

The principles of openness and transparency are intertwined with the purpose of the Federal Sustainable Development Act to make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament.

From the very first day we took office, our government has been committed to a renewed relationship with indigenous people based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. We are working to correct the injustices that have persisted and have contributed to an unacceptable socio-economic gap. That is why we are involving indigenous people. We want to underscore that this commitment is supported by important provisions in the proposed act to increase the number of indigenous representatives on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council to better reflect the breadth of indigenous groups represented and the challenges they face here in Canada.

The principle of collaboration emphasizes the role parties must play to achieve sustainable development. We need to work together.

Last, the principle of results and delivery is about making sure that we get there. We need to ensure that we have the right objectives and strategies to meet all the goals, but we also need good indicators to measure progress and make sure that we report on the progress in a way people can understand and be proud of.

The principles set out in Bill C-57 reaffirm that we are up to the challenge before us. We are ready to seize the opportunities before us and to be bold. Sustainable development means growing a diversified, low-carbon economy while reducing emissions and generating good-quality jobs for Canadians.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the discussion, we heard an NDP member mention that in 2007, Kinder Morgan had been purchased for $550 million. Of course, we can see what has happened to that asset in the last few years. Kinder Morgan, as we have just heard, has had kind of a positive view of the project, which will free up money for Kinder Morgan to be able to invest in better and more stable economic jurisdictions around the world. They, of course, will be moving oil.

I am rather curious about whether the member feels that with the sustainability development programs we are speaking of, there would be encouragement for Kinder Morgan to go in and move oil, for example, for energy east, which would be a great opportunity for the extra money investment it will have because of the money it has now made in British Columbia.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain expansion is in Canada's best interest. It was approved by our government. We understand that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. One of the benefits of this project is that it will create thousands of good paying jobs in Canada.

Our government wants to ensure we make investments and decisions that are in the best interests of Canadians. We want to ensure they are consulted and are the beneficiaries of those good paying jobs. In a lot of jurisdictions, many individuals face a lot of challenges. We want to ensure we take that into account.

This investment is an investment in Canada's future. It will ensure that Canadians are always at the forefront of our thoughts, and that we have good paying jobs for them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard some interesting interventions.

Kinder Morgan does not want to make a bad investment for its shareholders and it has now found a willing partner in the Liberal government to prevent that.

The finance minister has already started his snake oil salesman routine across the globe, looking for investors. Maybe he is going to go on Shark Tank or Dragons' Den and use them as venues to solicit more money.

How can the minister talk about partnerships and a thorough vetting of the environment, while at the same time not look at the fact that this bill is being circumvented by a shortening of time in the House to debate it and possibly improve it?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can look at Bill C-57 and the role Canada has to play in its leadership around sustainable development. Over the last couple of years, we have actively worked toward that.

As I said in my previous comments, our government introduced the Canada child benefit, which moves hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty and reduces hunger. It meets the first two goals of sustainable development, or tries to achieve some of that.

With respect to gender equality, our government has taken a whole-of-government approach. We see it in our G7 presidency. We are taking a leadership role not just on what we do domestically. Women and girls are the centre of our feminist international assistance policy.

This legislation is an ongoing and continuous focus on ensuring Canada is a leader in achieving sustainable development goals both here and around the world.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be speaking today in support of the sustainable development bill before us. I am accompanied by staunch defenders of our ecosystems, including my colleague from Manitoba, who is with us today, and my colleagues from British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

We want to make sure that we are using our resources in such a way that future generations will be able to do so as well. That is the core of the bill. This morning, my colleague from Saskatchewan reminded us that the concept of sustainable development is a recent development in the history of humanity. We need to go back to 1972. It was after I was born, but I think I was in elementary school at the time. In 1972, the Club of Rome raised the alarm, saying that the planet had limited resources and that we could not continue exploiting them relentlessly and irresponsibly. It predicted that, in the 21st century and, more specifically, around 2100, the continued pursuit of economic growth would result in a sharp drop in the population due to pollution, the loss of soil fertility and a shortage of energy resources. That was more than 46 years ago, at a time when resources were exploited with impunity and when there was no sewage treatment or pollution control.

Then, in 1987, awareness began to spread under the guidance of Gro Harlem Brundtland, who was prime minister of Norway at the time. She chaired a United Nations world commission on environment and development and published the landmark Brundtland report. That 1987 report, entitled “Our Common Future”, was the first to define the concept of sustainable development.

Let us take a moment to review that definition, which is at the heart of the matter. It is always important to make sure we agree on definitions. We have had some major debates here because we could not agree or because the government refused to put forward a definition. Here is the definition:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

It is about striking a balance between generations. One concept at the heart of sustainable development has to do with externalities, the environmental costs that are not measured in a transaction, but that still have consequences.

Sustainable development is based on three pillars: the environment, the economy, and the social aspect. Certain groups, including, dare I say, the current government, sometimes have a tendency to favour one pillar over the others, which creates an imbalance. This afternoon, I would like to share an example of an approach that would give all three pillars equal priority, thus ensuring sustainable development. I would like to point out that this is what the previous government did, under the leadership of its prime minister.

Before I start criticizing the work of the current government, I would like to offer an example of sustainable development for those watching the debate. As I was saying, sustainable development is based on three pillars: the environment, the economy, and the social aspect. I want to talk about the economic pillar. If we spend more than we earn, that is not sustainable. That would not be considered sustainable development.

The current government is shamelessly and irresponsibly spending money and cannot tell us when it will balance the budget. Future generations will have a guillotine hanging over their heads. Many of them are not yet old enough to vote, but as a result of decisions made by those who came before them, these future generations will be stuck with a tax burden when they reach voting age and join the workforce.

That is irresponsible. One of the main pillars of sustainable development is the economy, but the government is failing miserably on that front. Let me point once again to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's revelation that this government has set itself up for deficit after deficit. We are talking deficits in excess of $17 billion, and the worst of it is that there is no telling when the budget will be balanced again, even without any sign of an impending economic crisis.

In April 2018, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that not only will this year's deficit be $22 billion, but it will also continue to grow every year. That is four times what the Liberal Prime Minister promised. We are also seeing rising interest rates right now, which means that the interest on the national debt will grow to nearly $40 billion by 2022. That is almost two-thirds higher than last year, and it is certainly much more than the Minister of Finance promised. We are stuck in a debt cycle. That is one pillar of sustainable development the government is not holding up.

The second pillar is the environment. Our government set targets. It created an environmental watchdog, the Commissioner of the Environment. Just a few months ago, the Commissioner of the Environment said that, although the federal government had established a framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the measures in place would not be sufficient to achieve that goal.

The commissioner is raising the alarm. Despite the government’s environmental rhetoric, one of the only increases in spending in the Minister of the Environment’s budget was for communications. Moreover, the government has eliminated effective measures for preventing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves today. The government is implementing a carbon tax, but no one knows how it will affect greenhouse gas emissions, although, according to the Commissioner of the Environment, it will definitely have an impact on the standard of living.

That is the third pillar of sustainable development, namely, the social aspect. The Liberals are increasing the tax burden on middle-class families. The Fraser Institute has clearly shown that Canadian families pay more tax.

In contrast, the previous Conservative government reduced taxes for the middle class. Those years saw one of the largest increases in quality of life for middle-class Canadians. We balanced the budget and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2%. We managed to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy. That was because we invested. Since I am going to run out of time, if people want to know more, they can take a look at the 2013 budget, which describes how, in the previous decade, the Conservative government injected almost $17 billion in targeted actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, Quebec was given more than $400 million for its green plan, which has had a positive impact. Consider, for example, initiatives to foster the development of green technologies and investments in science and energy technology such as the energy efficiency technologies of CO₂ Solutions in the Quebec City area.

Time is running out, and I have barely had time to scratch the surface of today’s topic. I will conclude with a quote from a former Conservative prime minister who distinguished himself in the area of the environment. Members will recall the Montreal protocol, acid rain control, and the implementation of the first sustainable development strategy. He said that history will not judge us by our words, but on the results of our actions.

It is possible to lower Canadians' taxes, balance the budget, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is what our Conservative government did and I hope that the Liberal government, in the interest of future generations, will follow the Conservative government's example with this strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick comment before a question.

The member across the way made reference to tax cuts for the middle class a couple of times. Then he talked about actions verus verbiage. If we look at it, it was this government that introduced legislation and a budget with a tax cut for Canada's middle class. The Conservatives voted against that tax cut.

That said, I find it very interesting to have heard very little, if anything, about the amendment we are debating today. It deals with the sustainable development advisory committee. The Conservative members moved that amendment at committee, which all committee members came to an agreement on. It passed in committee. Now it comes to report stage, and the Conservative members are moving an amendment to delete the amendment they made at committee. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Could the member tell us why the Conservatives moved the report stage amendment? It makes no sense.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Basically, we want concrete measures. This is somewhat related to what I was saying when I quoted former prime minister Mulroney. This bill will add layers of bureaucracy. Even if one- or two-inch thick reports are produced, that is not going to have a real impact on sustainable development. Unfortunately, that is the current trend with the Liberals.

I wanted to go back to my colleagues' speech about the supposed tax cuts, which was full of nonsense. The facts show that the Liberal government is increasing the tax burden for all of Canada's middle class. The official opposition will always oppose this.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious what my colleague has to say about the fact that the federal government just spent $4.5 billion of taxpayer money to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for the question. She is asking what I think about the fact that the current government is injecting $4 billion into a foreign corporation in an attempt to get a domestic project back on track. Well, I am shocked. It may not be unprecedented but it sure looks a lot like another investment by a previous Liberal government.

It is shocking to see the government taking Canadian taxpayers for fools. It has gotten to the point where, in order to secure major development projects that create jobs, the Government of Canada has to try to repair the damage with taxpayer money. It created an administrative burden and is incapable of showing positive leadership. Worse yet, no one is sure if this will work. However, the one thing we do know is that we have been put on a slippery slope starting at $4 billion and the work has not even begun.

Considering how it is running our country, I think this Liberal government is not done running deficits and injecting money into endless funds, which it is managing with the incompetence it has shown since coming to power.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I loved my colleague's speech. It was very much to the point when it comes to sustainable development. I would like him to elaborate so that we can truly understand that the Liberal government is not a sustainable government.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is basically raising taxes and putting Canadians further in debt. It has lost control of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a colossal failure and an example of what not to do when it comes to sustainable development.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-57, which seeks to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for their excellent work, their positive approach, and their constructive suggestions. The committee's recommendations, which are set out in the report entitled “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations”, contributed to the development of Bill C-57, particularly with regard to the adoption of the sustainable development principles. Those principles were very well received.

The amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act reaffirm the government's ongoing commitment to strengthening Canada's relationship with indigenous people and enforcing their rights.

Bill C-57 includes a new set of sustainable development principles, one of which is the principle whereby indigenous people must be asked to contribute because of their traditional knowledge and their unique connection with and understanding of Canada's land and water. This principle reflects the important role traditional knowledge plays in supporting sustainable development, as well as the government's commitment to reconciliation based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

However, there are certain environmental problems that disproportionately affect indigenous peoples. For example, climate change and resource development alter wildlife migration patterns and ranges. These changes have an impact on indigenous peoples' access to traditional food sources, as well as on their food security and culture.

Furthermore, persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals can migrate long distances to northern Canada. Scientists have observed high levels of these contaminants in Arctic wildlife, so there is a health risk for indigenous peoples who use these animals as a food source.

Indigenous peoples' relationship to the land is particularly crucial to the mandate of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, because her department is responsible for preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the natural environment. At the same time, the government recognizes that indigenous peoples were the original stewards of the air, land, and water. Over many generations, they built up a vast store of knowledge about nature. That is why it is essential to continue to establish and maintain strong, positive relationships with indigenous communities and indigenous governing bodies. In the coming years, the government will continue to make use of all that knowledge, which is going to help shape our collective environmental future.

The Government of Canada committed to renewing the crown's relationship with indigenous people based on the recognition of their rights. We believe that adapting our work based on the recognition of rights is an important opportunity for us to build a relationship of trust with our indigenous partners; enhance the integrity of policies, research, and analysis; and obtain better environmental outcomes for all Canadians.

As part of our participation in the negotiation of various treaties and other conventions, we are working with indigenous partners to preserve and protect our wildlife and environmental resources. We are striving to implement transparent and rigorous consultation processes based on respect for the right of indigenous people to determine how land and resources will be used.

The government recognizes that there is still a lot of work to be done in this regard. We need to assess our contribution to the government's reconciliation agenda, including the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on an ongoing basis.

We must also strengthen our commitment to our indigenous partners and look at opportunities for aligning programs, policies, and departmental rules and regulations with indigenous rights and interests. Like every federal department and agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada operates on the Principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples, drafted by the Department of Justice to be used a guideline in shaping the work of the department in its relations with the indigenous peoples, including a rights-based approach.

At the heart of this change in culture and path to reconciliation is the recognition of the importance of our relationships with indigenous peoples. Consulting indigenous peoples is more than just a legal obligation, it is a way to make more informed decisions. Our government is determined to ensure that indigenous peoples have the opportunity to participate in, engage in, and contribute to this ongoing dialogue.

For the reasons I just mentioned, Environment and Climate Change Canada consults representative organizations and the governments of the first nations, the Inuit, and the Métis across the country. When the proposed changes were being drafted, indigenous peoples raised a few key themes. They told us that traditional indigenous knowledge is important for sustainable development and that indigenous peoples need to be heavily involved. They also mentioned that the government should implement measures that reflect respect for indigenous rights as a priority and recognize the role of governments in indigenous communities and societies.

The representative organizations and governments of the first nations, the Inuit, and the Métis also expressed the need to provide support to indigenous communities for activities such as implementing climate change adaptation plans and modernizing infrastructure. They also indicated that we need to set more ambitious objectives when it comes to the quality of drinking water for first nations.

The federal sustainable development strategy, which we introduced in October 2016, reflects what we heard. For example, we know that Canada's drinking water is among the safest in the world. In fact, 98% of Canadians have access to drinking water. However, access to drinking water remains a challenge in first nations communities living on reserve. The strategy contains a target to eliminate long-term drinking water advisories affecting public systems on reserve.

The Government of Canada is working with first nations communities to improve on-reserve water infrastructure, address drinking water advisories that are one or more years old, and prevent short-term advisories from becoming long-term ones.

All Canadians, including all levels of government, indigenous peoples, civil society, and the private sector have a role to play in advancing our sustainable development objectives and ensuring that no one is left behind. In 2016, our government undertook an extensive consultation process to review our international aid policy.

We also heard from indigenous peoples who want more say on environmental issues. Our bill proposes increasing the number of representatives of aboriginal peoples on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council from three to six, to ensure that the strategy reflects the rights and perspectives of indigenous peoples and the wide range of challenges they face across Canada.

Bill C-57 reflects what we heard from indigenous peoples. It also reflects the government's commitment to reconciliation based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for his remarks earlier on Bill C-57.

This morning's announcement casts a pall over this bill to strengthen sustainable development laws. The government announced that it is prepared to spend $4.7 billion to help a Texas company transport Alberta oil west to Asian markets.

The government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance are ready to write a cheque for at least $4.5 billion to transport Alberta crude oil west to Asian markets. That oil will make its way to refineries in those markets by oil tanker.

My question for my colleague is a simple one. How can he justify talking about sustainable development today when his government is doing the opposite?

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am indeed very happy to talk about sustainable development because I believe it is a fundamental part of Canada's economy. We are a nation that develops and sells its resources, and doing so sustainably is, in my opinion, great news for all Canadians. I am very proud of this bill, and I support it 100%.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. Earlier today we talked about how Kinder Morgan in 2007 had a $550 million investment. Of course, 10 years later we are looking at multiple times that. They are happy, as their shareholders perhaps would be, if they look at the investment.

Then we also have to look at the options they have for the money they have made. Perhaps one good place would have been energy east, which would have allowed a pipeline to be built to eastern Canada, but instead maybe they will go to other places around the world where it is easier to build pipelines. Maybe they will be building some to the other coast, so we can import oil from other countries, as we continue to do.

I am curious whether or not the member is looking at sustainability from the point of view of investments in Canadian oil and gas industries.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sustainability in all of our natural resources, including oil and gas, is critical.

As I said in my previous answer, natural resources is an important sector of the Canadian economy. Anything the federal government can do to support that industry and to do it in a durable and sustainable manner, I fully support. The fact that we do it in a more transparent manner is also something to be celebrated.

The ensemble of all of those things in support of our natural resources is good news for Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to get back to where we are right now with this particular piece of legislation.

We are talking about an amendment brought forward by the Conservative member for Abbotsford. However, the interesting thing is that he was the member of the committee who put forward the motion that he is now trying to remove with this amendment.

In good faith, while I was on the environment committee, we had the opportunity to discuss his amendment. We then voted on it and and adopted it. Now, with the bill as amended before the House, the member for Abbotsford has put forward an amendment to essentially delete this section of the bill.

I hate to be overly cynical about this, but what is the member's motive behind this? I am curious about what my colleague might suggest is the reason for even embarking upon this.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a funny situation when one party puts forward something, the government agrees with it, and then suddenly they have an about face to change it and go against what was put forward.

The only thing I can think is that it is about politics. That said, let them play politics. The important thing is that this bill is going to bring good, sustainable development to our Canadian resources. That is the important thing. Whatever politics happen, that is okay. The government is moving forward in the right way.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has about a minute and a half left before question period. He can continue his speech after question period.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make the most of this opportunity. I was going to talk about something, but I will come back to it right after question period.

The recent exchange I just witnessed between my Liberal colleagues leads me to speak about another aspect of the issue before us today, namely the hypocrisy on this side that they claim to condemn.

I want to remind the House of something. Very recently, in his commencement speech before New York University grads at the iconic Yankee Stadium, the Prime Minister of Canada asked 10,000 young men and women to respect people who look or think differently and engage with people with whom they may not agree. What does this government do instead? It imposes a time allocation motion on an issue as important and Bill C-57. He says one thing on the world stage and does the opposite here in Ottawa. After that, the Liberals have the nerve to lecture us, to tell us what to do, what to say, what not to say, because that would be playing partisan politics.

In closing, before question period, the only partisan politics here are happening on the other side of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have nine minutes to finish his speech when we resume debate on Bill C-57.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has nine minutes remaining to finish his speech.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the announcement of a rail bypass in Lac-Mégantic, I think my colleagues will allow me to say a few words about this very important project that was recently announced by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec. This project was highly anticipated by the people of Lac-Mégantic.

On the Lac-Mégantic bypass file, I saw parliamentarians come together to work for a cause, to help the local population of Lac-Mégantic, which truly needed parliamentarians to send a message to the government and for that message to be heard by the government.

It was a long haul. We had to ensure that every parliamentarian from all the parties agreed because we were creating a precedent in Lac-Mégantic. This is something that had never been seen before anywhere. To all those who ask why we created a precedent in Lac-Mégantic, I say that something unprecedented happened in Lac-Mégantic. There was an absolutely disastrous tragedy that is still being felt today by the local population.

I must say that the people of Lac-Mégantic, who have been waiting for this announcement for quite some time, are obviously very pleased. I want to acknowledge the support of parliamentarians, especially the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who travelled to Lac-Mégantic to hear from residents. That is where we began discussing this very important file among us, among parliamentarians from the various political parties. After that, the leaders of all the parties came out in favour of the bypass.

I must say that every time I had an opportunity to speak with a colleague, whether on the government side, from the second opposition party, or one of the independent members, I always sensed a great deal of compassion and openness with respect to this project.

I really want to thank everyone who opened their eyes, their ears, and their hearts to the people of Lac-Mégantic, for now we can finally start to look to the future. Now we can finally make sure that everyone in Lac-Mégantic who was directly or indirectly affected by this tragedy, whether it was themselves, their family, a friend, a parent, or a loved one, they can now start saying that they are finally rebuilding for the future.

The last few years have been spent demolishing and cleaning up the old downtown core. The rebuilding process has begun, but the whistling trains that roll through several times a day were a constant reminder of the tragedy.

Again, I want to thank all the parliamentarians who helped make this announcement possible. I want to thank former mayor Colette Roy Laroche, the mayor who was in office during the first years of my term, Jean-Guy Cloutier, and the current mayor, the very energetic Julie Morin, who knew just how to seize her opportunities and pick the right time to speak to the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, for making this announcement possible. There are many residents I also want to thank, like the reeve, Marielle Fecteau, who also worked very hard on this.

Again, this project was only made possible because all parliamentarians came together and co-operated to finally give some meaning to this tragedy and help the people of Lac-Mégantic get closure.

However, the real work is just beginning. This is where Bill C-57 comes in. Now, it is time to work on compensation, the environment, and the best way forward to minimize possible consequences for the people who will be getting this bypass. I am certain that we will again be able to do this work in a fair and prudent manner so that this project goes as smoothly as the other one did. Again, I thank all parliamentarians. This really showed the good side of our Parliament.

Now I want to come back to Bill C-57 and to everything that happened today with this bill. That is the not-so-good side of Parliament. Obviously, I do not just have praise to offer. There are some things that are good and some that are less good.

I was quite surprised today when the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said one thing and did exactly the opposite not once, not twice, but three times.

Allow me to quote something the government House leader said: “There are a lot of bills to debate and, since we know that the opposition members want to participate in those debates, we are going to extend the sitting hours so that everyone can participate and work harder for Canadians.”

A little later, while answering questions, she said: “...we see that the hon. members across the way want to play games in the House and in committee. It is their choice, but we want to work very hard for Canadians. That is our way of doing things.”

What is their way of doing things? Today, they imposed three time allocation motions. Those three motions will limit parliamentarians' participation in the very important work of the House. How can anyone say something so many times yet do the opposite? Here is another quote from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons:

“We know at this of the year most governments have extended hours so that we can do more work to ensure that we are representing Canadians and advancing good bills. This will provide an opportunity for more members to be part of an important debate to ensure that the voices of their constituents are heard right here as it is the House of the people.”

Then, they moved three motions to prevent opposition members from speaking. They did it three times. Here is another quote:

“This will provide an opportunity for more members to be part of an important debate...”

The government did the complete opposite today. We have been called in here three times to vote on the government's time allocation motions. This goes against the spirit of mutual understanding that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons repeated as often as she could during the period for questions on Motion No. 22. Bill C-57 is one of the victims of this government's desire to limit speeches by opposition members.

The government is extending the sitting hours, but at the same time it is allocating fewer hours of debate. It says one thing, but ultimately, it will not be giving opposition members more opportunities to speak. I have another fine quote from the Leader of the government in the House of Commons. She said, “This is an opportunity to have more hours of debate in order to allow a greater number of hon. members to participate.” She continued as follows:

“Let us extend the hour, let us have more time to debate, so more members can have their voices heard. We can advance more legislation. It sounds like a win-win-win situation.”

Limiting the number of speeches and hours of debate, deciding how many members opposite will be allowed to speak, telling those who do not have time to speak that they must remain seated, and then moving on to another bill is not what I would call a win-win situation.

In summary, when parliamentarians are able to work together on a project like the one in Lac-Mégantic, that is good. Canadians want to see a lot more of that. However, when the government says one thing and does the opposite, as it did today, unfortunately, it is judged harshly by Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to commend my colleague for the work that he has done on the rail bypass project in Lac-Mégantic. That is extremely important, and the Liberal government should have come up with a plan sooner instead of dragging its feet on this file. However, in the end, it is good news.

This bill talks about sustainable development. Of course, we learned today that the Liberal government is going to spend $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline because it failed to manage that file properly. I know that my colleague and I do not agree on that pipeline, but investing $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline is not anyone's idea of sustainable development from either an economic, social, or environmental perspective.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, such a decision is disheartening. We know that this is not the first time that the Liberal government has failed since it was elected. It is not the first time that the Liberal government has failed to keep its promise. In this case, all it had to do was let Kinder Morgan expand its network to export more oil. Unfortunately, the government's failure was such that the pipeline was opposed by just about everyone. The only solution that the Liberal government could come up with to resolve the situation was to take taxpayers' money and buy a pipeline, without knowing how much the expansion will cost. It is disheartening to see that it will be Canadians' hard-earned money that will be used to fix the Prime Minister's mistakes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that it is important to debate the sustainable development bill. However, it is very disappointing that even though we support this bill, not all the committee's recommendations will be implemented. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and when we prepare reports we are disappointed by the response from the government after making our recommendations. It is the same old story with Bill C-57. The committee agreed on several recommendations and the government came up with a bill that does not respect the spirit of all those recommendations.

For example, witnesses mentioned that despite the definition of sustainable development, this bill only refers to the environmental decision-making process and there is no vision for the environmental and social aspects that are the main pillars of sustainable development.

Does my colleague believe, as I do, that the government should pay careful attention to committee reports, including the one on this bill?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government obviously has no intention of looking at the committees' reports, because these reports sometimes contain recommendations from the opposition. Actually, no, there are not often recommendations from the opposition, because these recommendations do not make it into the committee reports. The government does not let the opposition include recommendations in these reports because the Liberal majority on the committees is stopping the opposition's good recommendations from getting here, to the House. This is a problem. For a week now, it has looked as though the Liberal majority plans to use its power more and more to silence any criticism. The Liberals do not like being criticized.

Before I conclude, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond and his entire team for all of their support on the Lac-Mégantic file. I could feel their party's support from the beginning, and it was truly appreciated and noted by the people of Lac-Mégantic.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to talk about the environment in the House of Commons. That is why I ran for politics, to defend the environment, to promote sustainable development. I remember it well. My wife Liliana and I were watching television and there were reports on the shale gas scandal at the time. My wife said that something needed to be done. I told her that she was right. We got involved and now I am in the House of Commons in the process of defending the environment and promoting sustainable development.

Bill C-57 before us now seeks to improve the sustainable development strategy; it is an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. We support this bill in principle, but we feel that the committee's recommendations should have been followed more closely. The government did not see the committee's recommendations through.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development studied the legislation currently in effect. Many of the witnesses who spoke at the committee mentioned the gaps in the law. First, contrary to the definition of sustainable development, the legislation talks about the decision-making process with regard to the environment, but not the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development. That was a problem we needed to correct and that was not done. Second, it targets transparency and accountability instead of progress on sustainable development and those are also aspects that were not corrected in the legislation. The committee acknowledged the existence of these major flaws, then recommended amending the legislation accordingly. Unfortunately, Bill C-57 does not correct these flaws and considers only some of the recommendations. It does not consider the entirety of the recommendations made by the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Once again, the Liberal Party unfortunately did not listen to its own members and refused to implement the recommendations received from the standing committee. Clearly, the government is not committed to honouring its commitments regarding the UN's general sustainable development goals, which include making sure that the government as a whole ensures that its laws and policies reflect environmental, social, and economic needs.

In that regard, it is rather ironic, in a negative sense, that we are debating sustainable development today, the same day that the Liberal government announced that it is buying the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline. That company purchased the pipeline for $550 million, and the federal government is going to use $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to buy it. That is outrageous. It is going to give that money to a company in Texas, so that money will be leaving Canada, not to mention that the government also gives $1.3 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies to oil and gas companies. The Liberal government said that it would respect its commitment to Canada to eliminate those subsidies, but it did not do that. We in the NDP have been saying for quite some time that we will eliminate those subsidies. Those subsidies must be eliminated and that money must be invested instead in a just transition to a low-carbon economy, an economy based on renewable energy sources. That $4.5 billion would have been incredibly useful for developing renewable energy companies. As we know, the renewable energy sector is creating 10 times as many jobs as the fossil fuel sector.

Had the government done the right thing and invested that $4.5 billion in renewable energy, we would have created many more long-term jobs for now as well as for our children and grandchildren. That is another reason I am in politics. I want to leave our children and grandchildren a better world. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is making a mistake.

Buying a pipeline is not a step toward sustainable development; it is a step back. This is definitely not the right thing to do. It is a terrible idea, and I am certain Canadians will not accept it. The people will be very vocal in their opposition to buying the pipeline with taxpayer dollars. The Liberals certainly did not talk about this issue during the campaign.

Since we are talking about sustainable development, I would like to say a few words about what is going on in the Drummond region on that front. We have businesses in the renewable energy sector, in heat recovery, and in energy efficiency. Drummondville itself is fortunate to have a diversified economy and future-oriented businesses working in renewable energy and energy conservation. That is an important point to make. There are plenty of great businesses doing that in Drummond.

The City of Drummondville recently announced that it was going to establish a plan for sustainable mobility. I would like to thank John Husk, the municipal councillor for District 5 and chair of the Chantier sur le développement d’un plan de mobilité durable et le transport actif et collectif. That is a very good thing for Drummond because 85% of its citizens do not carpool. We have to fix that. Therefore it is a very good thing to have a plan for sustainable mobility.

What is meant by “sustainable mobility” in the vision that people want to develop for Drummondville? First, there is the economic component. Mobility must be efficient and foster economic vitality in trade corridors. Next, from the social point of view, it must be accessible to be good for the community, equitable, safe, and compatible with health. In terms of the environment, sustainable mobility limits the use of space and resources, is integrated into the environment, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. What I have just mentioned is the complete opposite of what the Liberal government is currently doing.

I now want to repeat an important point. Today is a sad day for Canada. The Liberal government announced that it will be diverting $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to buy a pipeline that is worth just $550 million. The Liberals blindly spent this money on an obsolete energy source when we could have embraced the future and sustainable development. It just so happens that Bill C-57 is about sustainable development.

The government should have a vision and invest the $4.5 billion in the companies, like those in Drummond, working to improve energy efficiency, recover heat, and develop renewable energy, such as solar, wind and other energy. That is the Canada that we we want to leave our children and grandchildren.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech.

I too am extremely shocked at the decision to buy the Burnaby pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion. Even worse, that only includes the existing pipeline, which is now over 60 years old. The government also promised to expand the pipeline, a highly controversial move, since it will infringe indigenous rights and go against British Columbia's interests.

What does my colleague think of the fact that we are debating a bill on sustainable development on the very day the government made a decision that violates every principle of sustainable development?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. Green Party colleague for her very relevant question.

My colleague mentioned other broken promises. The failure with Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline is just one in a long string of promises broken by the Liberal government. The Liberals said that once they took office, they would review the environmental process that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives trashed. Instead of fulfilling their promise, the Liberals dragged their feet. They did not table the review of the bill on environmental assessment until today, in June, three years into their term. They cannot say they have not been dragging their feet. That is how they ended up approving this terrible pipeline project based on inaccurate environmental assessments from a process that had been completely butchered by the Harper government and the Conservatives. The Liberals are responsible for their own failure on this file.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to ask my colleague a question. I did appreciate his comments. He and I were both shocked at the decision the federal government made to purchase the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Our reasons are different, but they both go to the root of sustainability. Sustainability is about finding the appropriate balance between our social objectives, our economic objectives, and our environment objectives.

I certainly believe that the Kinder Morgan pipeline purchase is symptomatic of a government that does not understand what sustainability means. It does not understand what that balance means. It has completely neglected the economic component.

My colleague, of course, is more concerned about the environment and has a different approach. He believes that the environment has been neglected. I would ask him to comment more broadly, beyond just the Kinder Morgan pipeline. To what degree does he believe that the Liberal government, which has been in power now for two and a half years, actually understands sustainability and the appropriate balance between the economy and the environment?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us does indeed deal with sustainable development and is based on three pillars: the environment, the economy, and the social aspect. The problem with this government is that it made promises. To approve the pipelines, it had to overturn the environmental assessment bill introduced by the Conservatives that had eliminated a large number of responsibilities.

This government dragged its feet for two and a half years. It approved a project, even though it had said that it would not approve a project based on old environmental assessments. It broke its promise. It was the author of its own misfortune. Now, it wants to push through a pipeline and force it down Canadian taxpayers' throats. On top of that, it wants to make them pay $4.5 billion of their own money, when this money could be redistributed in a much more sensible and appropriate way.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking to this important piece of legislation about the environment and sustainability.

There is a saying in politics that 24 hours is a long time. In the last day, we have had some seminal events with respect to the way the government is operating in terms of the economy and the environment, and also, by the way, in terms of this chamber. We have had closure brought forward three times in one day. That has to be a record. Certainly, if the government continues at this pace, it will far surpass the record of any previous administration with respect to closure. Three times in one day is quite something. It shows that it has no interest in meaningful dialogue on the legislation it has put forward. In many cases, it is doing this on omnibus bills, very long pieces of legislation that include many varied and different elements. For instance, it just brought forward closure on a bill dealing with criminal justice, with many different elements in it. It includes, as my colleagues have pointed out, reducing sentences, yet it tries to justify it by saying that there is something over here in the bill we might like. That is precisely the point when we have this omnibus legislation. That is part of the context. We are at close to 11 o'clock tonight debating Bill C-57, having had three different instances of closure brought forward today.

Speaking of the environment and sustainability, which is the core theme of this legislation, we also had the government announce today that the only way it can get a pipeline built is if it first buys a pipeline that is over 60 years old, and if it is able to work out all the legal wrangling through the courts and with the B.C. government, it will then go ahead and spend billions more of taxpayers' money to build that pipeline. That is not fiscally sustainable. If the government wants to establish a precedent that any time major economic development projects happen they will only happen if it is spending enormous amounts of taxpayers' money, that is not a fiscally sustainable model of economic growth.

Our approach, in the Conservative Party, is to establish the conditions that allow for private sector economic development. Under the previous government, there were four pipelines built. A fifth pipeline was approved. We hear the bizarre criticism from the government that the Conservatives did not build any pipelines to tidewater. Let us be clear. Up until now, at least, it has not been the government that has built pipelines. The government has evaluated and approved pipelines, or had the option of not approving them. However, in our case, we approved pipelines that had been proposed by the private sector. That included approving a pipeline to tidewater as well as approving and overseeing the construction of four pipelines.

From an environmental perspective, I think we should be very supportive of the development of pipelines, because transporting our energy resources through pipelines is a more environmentally sustainable way of proceeding. It is less costly, actually, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, to be transporting our energy resources by pipeline. Therefore, it is a win-win. It is a win economically and a win for the environment.

We often hear from the government that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Sometimes they go hand in hand in the wrong direction, and sometimes they move hand in hand in the right direction. Under the current government, they are both moving in the wrong direction, I think. Under the previous government, we got pipelines built by creating conditions for the private sector to get that work done. That allowed for economic advancement for our country and also environmental improvements.

The previous Conservative government was the first government in Canadian history to oversee a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Our friends across the way are always very skeptical of this. They want to find reasons they cannot really credit it to us, and here are the arguments they use. They will try to say that the Conservatives cannot really take credit for the reduction in greenhouse emissions, because the reductions were the result of policies undertaken by the provinces. The response to that is that if we compare the record of the previous Conservative government to the Liberal government before it, we either had reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or there was an increase that was lower than the increase in the previous period. In other words, there were improvements in terms of environmental performance in every jurisdiction, which suggests that it was not merely about things happening in individual jurisdictions, although there is obviously a role to be played there, but was a result of federal policy. That was the record of the previous government.

The current government will then say that it was only because of the recession. It is true that the Conservatives governed during a period when there was a global recession, yet at a time when global emissions went up, Canadian emissions went down, even though Canada was relatively less impacted by the global economic recession than many other countries. We were able to achieve environmental improvements at a time when the rest of the world did not, even though the rest of the world was more affected by the recession and therefore saw more constriction in terms of economic activity compared to what was happening in Canada.

If one puts those facts together and recognizes that the Conservatives undertook thoughtful, managed policies on environmental improvements, a regulatory sector-by-sector approach, one can see that we achieved real, substantial, and meaningful progress.

Here is the difference. We do not use the environment as an excuse to impose new taxes on low- and middle-income Canadians. We see the environment as an objective that can be pursued in concert with economic improvement. We can have a sustainable federal budget that does not involve massive deficits at the same time as concerning ourselves with sustainable environmental performance, in environmental terms.

If we look at the record of the previous Conservative government, we can see a strong economy as well as improvements in terms of the environment. I hate to be accused of plagiarism, but if we look at the record of the previous government, it does look like the environment and the economy were going hand in hand.

Under the current government, we see something quite different. We see a government totally unable to establish the conditions that allow for private sector investments in pipelines. In fact, what it is doing is buying out assets, which leads companies to then move that money and make those investments elsewhere. Kinder Morgan is going to spend the money it received from the Canadian government, but it is not going to spend it here in Canada. Very likely, it is going to spend it in other parts of the world.

The energy sector in other countries is doing very well, but we face continuing, significant challenges here in Canada as a result of the government's total inability to get these issues right. It is imposing more taxes on low- and middle-income Canadians through its carbon tax, and by the way, it is not telling people how much it will cost. We are still asking the government to come clean, end the carbon tax cover-up, and share with us the cost to individual Canadians of the carbon tax. It will not come clean with respect to that. It will not reveal the information and has only released severely redacted, blacked-out documents that prevent Canadians from actually seeing what the impact of that carbon tax will be.

The government thinks that imposing these new taxes on Canadians is somehow going to lead to solutions to our environmental challenges. If we want to see what sustainable development really looks like, we should look specifically at what happened in terms of economic performance and greenhouse gas reductions during the period of the previous government.

When we have this kind of big government intervention, the economy model the government has, it is not fiscally sustainable. It means leaving massive debt and deficits to the next generation, and it does not do much good for our environment, either.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I found that the hon. member's speech included some contradictions, and it certainly abstracted from certain realities.

The member mentioned at the beginning of his speech that the issue of the Trans Mountain pipeline is wrapped up in legal wrangling. Does the member believe that a Conservative government would eliminate legal wrangling? How would it do that? Would it eliminate the court system?

We have a court system in this country that environmentalists, provincial governments, and all kinds of intervenors and stakeholders can access. That is what has happened with the Trans Mountain pipeline project. It has become caught up in legal wrangling, and the government had to act in that context.

The member seems to think that somehow, with the wave of a magic wand, a Conservative government would eliminate all legal wrangling. I would like the hon. member to respond to that notion.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is with great sympathy and understanding that I acknowledge that for a Liberal, it would look like magic to do what I just described, which is establish the conditions that allow for private sector growth. It is not a thought experiment. Look at where we were in October 2015. Four pipelines had been built, the northern gateway project had been approved, and Trans Mountain and energy east were pipelines being proposed by private sector investors.

Where are we today? Energy east has been killed indirectly by the piling on of burdens. By the way, I would like to know what the Maritime Liberal MPs think about the total inaction on energy east in the midst of the government bailing out Trans Mountain, because we want to see energy east, as well. That pipeline is no longer being pursued by the private sector proponent. The northern gateway pipeline was killed directly and intentionally by government policy, and the only way the government thinks it can get Trans Mountain done is by buying it out.

That is not a question of magic. That is a question of the difference elections make. Elections have consequences, and in 2019, that election will have consequences as well.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to understand the Conservative position with regard to purchasing the pipeline and the intervention in market forces. Would they also consider that massive tax subsidization, through tax credits and subsidies, especially given the fact that a number of organizations and companies have paid very few taxes, also represents market intervention, since this reduces taxation amounts? Would they also consider subsidies, grants, and research credits advantages, where the public has subsidized the industry?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know, of course, that the NDP does not take a consistent position in terms of corporate welfare in general. We would have to have a more detailed discussion about how it is defining “subsidy” in this specific context.

My colleague lumped a few things together in a way that seems a little bit imprecise to me. In general, I am not supportive, for instance, of direct government grants to private business and a government buying a pipeline in the way the government has. There is a legitimate place for non-refundable tax credits, like SR&ED credits. There is a legitimate place for an accelerated capital cost writeoff as an incentive for companies to make investments in Canada.

In general, we want to be competitive and encourage investments in Canada. I think the best way to do it is not through the government picking winners and losers through direct subsidies, but rather by establishing conditions and providing incentives to encourage those kinds of capital investments. I would encourage the NDP, when it looks at the oil and gas sector compared to other sectors, to at least take a consistent position, because some of the things it is criticizing in terms of tax credits in the energy sector seem like the same kinds of things it advocates for in sectors like the auto sector. We are very supportive—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately the time is up. I tried to let the member know that his time was running very short.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to present my thoughts on Bill C-57. I regret very much that we have time allocation on this bill, and even more so the hour of 11 p.m. that is now approaching. This important legislation deserves to be heard in a normal fashion with full debate.

Let me go back to when this bill originated. The Federal Sustainable Development Act was actually passed in the era of a Conservative government, and was one of those rare pieces of legislation that originated with the opposition. It was brought forward by a former Liberal MP, John Godfrey. It was one of his last contributions as a very diligent and thoughtful member of Parliament. He went on to leave Parliament and go back to his old stomping grounds of education.

Sustainable development and aspects of sustainable development had been in Canadian law before. This bill managed to get through Parliament in 2008, and the successor bill that we have before us tonight does improve some elements of sustainable development as originally put forward with a lot of co-operation in this place back in 2008. I was not yet a member of Parliament in that year, but I followed very closely the development of the Federal Sustainable Development Act because it was really a high-water mark for the minority-government years of former Prime Minister Harper, because opposition parties were willing to work together. The opposition parties had a majority, but very rarely used it. In this case, the Federal Sustainable Development Act was brought in. This act could have been improved and strengthened, but there is very little that I would say is wrong with it. I am disappointed that we will repeal the definition of the precautionary principle, but overall the bill will strengthen the application of sustainable development principles to more parts of the federal government, and I do like the creation of a sustainable development advisory council. The bill has real potential, but I do not think the government plans to do with it what I hope it will do.

Going back to the early 1960s, for decades the Canadian government benefited from well-researched, strong public policy advice from institutions that we no longer have. We used to have, starting in 1963, the Economic Council of Canada. We had as well the Science Council of Canada. In the early 1970s, we had the creation of the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. In 1993, all three of those agencies were wound up and repealed. That meant we lost the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, and the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. They were wound up and repealed because in 1993 the federal government brought in the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. This was our first substantial sustainable development tool. To quote the late Jim MacNeill, a brilliant Canadian diplomat and former deputy minister who really challenged the ideas of sustainable development, one of the core ideas was that “If we change the way we make decisions, we'll change the kind of decisions we make.”

The idea of the national round table was that by bringing together people from different perspectives, including trade unions, large corporate enterprises, academics, environmentalists, indigenous people, as well as government ministers and agencies and so on, the resulting give and take and shared learning would create decisions that met the challenge of sustainability, because sustainability is not the environment by itself. Sustainability has at least three legs to the stool. They are the environment, and social and economic concerns, but those are within a very clear mandate to ensure that the decisions we take today do not compromise the ability of future generations to make their own decisions and to meet their own needs. In other words, sustainability requires that we think about intergenerational equity.

Here I have to confess that I was a member and vice-chair for quite a while of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Its work was substantial. I do not want to blow my own horn, but a lot of work was done by a lot of people over many years, and I served for only a relatively brief period.

In 2012, under omnibus budget Bill C-38, the national round table was eliminated. No one at that point said that we had better bring back all those other advisory bodies that we had eliminated in 1993 when we created the national round table. There is no longer the Economic Council, no longer the Science Council, no longer the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, and there is no national round table.

This is the first time something has been created that could meet that need, namely a sustainable development advisory council. It is pretty thin gruel. It could do a lot. The Treasury Board within the act could establish policies or issue directives and could be adequately funding this new agency, which is quite modestly proposed in the act. That said, I certainly hope that the government will realize that we desperately need sound advice on what is sustainable and what is not.

Speaking of what is not sustainable, it includes today's announcement that the Government of Canada is going to form a crown corporation that will now be the management entity for a pipeline that the federal government proposes to buy with a closing date in August. I can only hope that something goes wrong with this sale because this is monstrous. We are proposing to spend $4.5 billion to buy the assets of what is called the Trans Mountain pipeline, but owned by Kinder Morgan of Houston, Texas.

The Trans Mountain pipeline was built in 1953 by a Canadian company with the goal of bring crude or synthetic crude to Burnaby, British Columbia, where over time they developed four refineries. The Trans Mountain pipeline was all about bringing Canadian crude from Alberta to Canadian refineries in the Lower Mainland for domestic use.

When Kinder Morgan bought the assets of Trans Mountain, which are now more than 60 years old, in its valuation to the National Energy Board, the company put the value of the Trans Mountain assets at $550 million. Those are the assets that today the Minister of Finance announced he would buy at a price of $4.5 billion. That is astonishing. Kinder Morgan has certainly achieved a very rich return on investment without having invested new infrastructure.

Kinder Morgan wanted to build a new pipeline, but I think it has lost interest in it. That is why it kidnapped its own project and said that if we did not have a solution by May 31, it would walk away. Clearly for political reasons, primarily for the impact in Alberta, the federal government decided that anything was preferable to having Kinder Morgan walk away, so it has done something astonishing. It is planning to spend $4.5 billion to buy the existing assets of the old pipeline and to take on, as yet undescribed by the Minister of Finance, but said by Kinder Morgan to be a $7.4 billion project to build the expansion. The government is taking on a project that has not yet cleared its conditions with the National Energy Board and is still before the courts in 15 different court cases for violation of indigenous rights, and is doing so with a completely scandalously inadequate environmental review before the National Energy Board within which evidence was put forward by Kinder Morgan and at which no intervenors were allowed to cross-examine.

We now find ourselves asking if the government understands sustainable development, because overarching all of this is the most fundamental and pressing question, what about the climate crisis? How can we possibly claim that Canada understands the pressing imperative of the transition away from fossil fuels, whether in 10, 20, or 30 years? We need to make plans. How can we understand the imperative of avoiding the kind of disaster that deprives not hypothetical future generations but our own children, children alive today that we tuck in at night? How can we possibly think we understand sustainability while building pipelines?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague quite rightly referred to the fact that the original sustainable development act was actually a collaboration within this very House, but in a previous Parliament. It was a minority government and it produced an act that all members in this House could support, one that reflected the appropriate balance between our social objectives, our environmental objectives, and our economic imperatives. Then that went on to result in a study that took place at the environment committee.

We studied the act as it had been implemented over a number of years. We found a number of shortcomings. We suggested improvements. Some of those improvements were actually incorporated into the bill we have before us, Bill C-57.

However, at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. If a government does not want to apply the lens of sustainability, it will not, and quite frankly, I have serious reservations about the ability of the Liberal government to understand what sustainability means.

My colleague referenced that. She asked if the government actually understands sustainability. She referred to the Kinder Morgan sale, the purchase by the government of that pipeline, as a clear indicator that the government does not understand sustainability.

I would ask her if she has any other examples of the government failing to understand the true notion of sustainability.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly there are many. As a matter of fact, every time I hear the minister say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, increasingly I have that image of Thelma and Louise just at the last frame of the film. The environment and the economy go hand in hand when one chooses to do things for the economy that benefit the environment, but when one chooses to do things that are in conflict, then one is living in a world of trying to hold opposing notions together at the same time, otherwise known as cognitive dissonance.

A specific example is approving two LNG projects that will drive up greenhouse gases in B.C., Petronas LNG and Woodfibre LNG. Another was the approval of Site C, a project that did not receive an environmental assessment clean bill of health, and if they had gone back and looked at that review, they would not have approved it. There have been numerous occasions on which the decision-making went against what I had expected from a government that claims to understand sustainability.

I do applaud the effort to put in place a carbon price, but the government has not removed fossil fuel subsidies, and, as anyone can see, it is spending billions of dollars. At this point it is committed to at least $15 billion on this project. It is doing the opposite of ending fossil fuel subsidies. It is inventing new ones.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned intergenerational equity, which is something that now has been incorporated into sustainability. I would ask her to perhaps expand on what that means to her, and how intergenerational equity will benefit future generations of Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has just a little over a minute to respond.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the essence of sustainability, in many ways, goes back to the concept that comes to us from the Iroquois Confederacy of making decisions on to the seventh generation when we think about what we are doing, and today we are thinking long term. Our economic theories tend to discount the future, and it is hard for us to think about what it means to future generations because they are not right here in front of us.

At a minimum—and this goes back to the Brundtland commission report, “Our Common Future”—the idea was that the decisions we make today should meet our own needs, while at the same time ensuring that we do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

The kinds of things that exemplify sustainability, for instance, are projects that ensure we are replanting as many trees as possible, or ensuring that we do everything we can to suck carbon out of the atmosphere by replanting the mangrove forest of the planet. We have removed about a third of the mangrove forest.

We are doing everything we can to get fossil fuels out of our electricity system. Decarbonizing electricity is a key goal. One of the things we could do, if we are throwing around $4.5 billion, is to use it to build an east-west electricity grid to green up our electricity sector.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here at 11:15 at night to talk about Bill C-57, a bill that seeks to make amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Someone else was commenting about time allocation today, and there is something about the Gordie Howe hat trick, like a goal, an assist, and a fight. We almost had a government House leader hat trick here today with the closure motion and two time allocation motions.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act has been in place since 2008. It was introduced during the previous Conservative government. I am pleased to see steps are being taken to ensure that it remains relevant in our current landscape.

Jim Prentice, our colleague whom we sadly lost in an aviation accident, said it best: “We must balance environmental issues with economic and social considerations. By doing so, we can make long-term sustainable progress on the environment that is integrated with progress on the economic and social agenda for Canadians.” Most of us in this place, if not all of us, will agree with that.

The bigger point here, though, is making sure we have both environmental protection and economic success. Our previous government did that, which is why the current government kept our environmental plans. The biggest difference, arguably, is that it just slapped a new name on the department.

Suffice it to say that we agree that sustainability is a fiscally responsible decision, especially in a country where natural resources play such a substantial role in our economy. That is why this side of the House has been pushing so hard on Trans Mountain, on ensuring that the government takes action to ensure that this pipeline gets built.

Now we find ourselves in a bind, because apparently the only way the government could make this happen was to throw a bunch of money at Kinder Morgan. Perhaps this could be an indication that the Liberal approach to attracting and maintaining business partnerships is not working.

There was a story yesterday in Bloomberg entitled—and I will adjust the title so as not to name anyone—“[The Prime Minister]'s Hipster Economics Looked Great Until Trump Cut Taxes”. Many may think this judgment is a bit harsh, but I think the criticism is warranted, and here is why.

Canada needs Kinder Morgan and other energy investment. We have been saying this for months and years. Energy investment means thousands of jobs for Albertans and workers across Canada. It means growth for our provinces and increased revenues for the economy.

What has happened with Trans Mountain, a project that has been so ineptly handled by the government that taxpayers are now owners of a pipeline, is not surprising, given the attitude of the government toward business growth, and it will certainly not be the last time it happens.

As the Bloomberg article says:

Around the country, business owners and corporate executives are grumbling. Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia are also boosting minimum wages. The federal government is requiring provinces to put a price on carbon emissions to help fight climate change in a program that could push power bills up further. Railroad bottlenecks threaten Canada's standing as a major commodities exporter. There's insufficient pipeline capacity for the oil-sands boom.

On a continent where our neighbour is cutting corporate taxes, pumping the brakes on regulatory policy, and undoing much of the tangles of red tape, Canada has become the regulation-happy, carbon-tax-wielding, under-investment monster that businesses fear, and the ones we had managed to keep at least for a while are now fleeing the country.

What incentive is there for businesses like Kinder Morgan to stay? There is next to none, basically.

In the case of Trans Mountain, the government's response is not to address the problems stemming from the beast it has created but instead to dip a little more into the public purse and throw out more money borrowed from our kids, our grandkids, and our great-grandkids.

While I and my colleagues understand that the environment is important in considering federal policy, it must be done responsibly, not just to fight climate change but to protect economic prosperity as well, and that is something we have yet to see from the government.

The trend we have been seeing is that the government loves to say it is doing something, with absolutely zero follow-through. It is almost as if we see more apologies in the House than bills passed.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report outlining how the government has fallen short in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, something we have been saying would happen for years.

The Liberal government has pie-in-the-sky ideas with absolutely no ability to get anything done. It aims for the headline and walks back the actual policy when it comes time to get something done. The Liberals cannot even follow their own plan, and the environment commissioner agrees. Here is an example from the report.

Report 2 from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's 2018 Spring Report states:

Overall, we found that the Government of Canada had not developed a formal approach to implement the 2030 Agenda and the sustainable development goals.

It went on:

[D]espite some specific action at the departmental level, there was still no federal governance structure based on clearly articulated departmental roles and responsibilities by November 2017. We found no communication plan and no engagement strategy on how to include other levels of government and Canadians in a national dialogue on the 2030 Agenda.

Here is the commissioner's statement on the government's outstanding record on the environment so far:

First, the federal government does not regularly balance the three pillars of sustainable development [economic, environmental, and social].

Second, there is a lack of leadership for many sustainable development activities.

Third, the federal government has not implemented the tools it already has to assess the impacts of policy decisions on sustainable development.

This, in itself, is why we need the Federal Sustainable Development Act. We need to ensure that we are balancing all aspects of sustainability, not just the things that get a headline in the Toronto Star, and that we are doing more than just talk.

I want to look at the environment and climate change departmental plan, the annual departmental plan that gets released when the estimates come out. In the plan's introduction, the minister says that she is pleased to present it. I would be very embarrassed to present the plan that she has.

The former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, said that departmental plans are mere communication devices, and this report is proof. The Treasury Board president, in his failed estimates reform, promised to address this but has not.

This is what the Treasury Board website says about the departmental plans:

The Policy on Results sets out the fundamental requirements for...departmental accountability for performance information...while highlighting the importance of results in management and expenditure decision making, as well as public reporting.

Basically, it is saying, “Here are our plans, and here is what the results are going to be. This is what we are going to spend, and this is what we are going to achieve.”

However, I want to look at the environment departmental plan. Yes, I have read them; I do not think many people have. I am going to read the planned results.

For departmental result indicators on GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles, the target is a 21% improvement, which is fair enough, “for manufacturer model year 2017 reporting relative to 2011 model year”. One would think that if we were going to reduce it from 2011 to 2017, this already being 2018, which is odd, we would have what the GHG emissions are right now. The target date to achieve it is 2018, but under “actual results” for last year and the years before to compare it against, the comment is “This is a new indicator. Results are not available from previous years.” Fair enough, we have nothing to compare it to.

The next is GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles: “Percentage improvement in GHG emissions performance for manufacturer model year 2018-2020 reporting relative to the 2010 model year”. The target is 13% lower by 2020. Again, if we are comparing it to previous years to see how we are doing, one would think that we would know what it is for 2016-17 and not just compared to eight years ago. What do they have? “This is a new indicator.” Results are not available from the previous year, or the year before that, oddly enough.

For HFC emissions, the target is a 10% reduction in consumption levels compared to 2017-18. The date to achieve this target is 2019. What did we do last year? We do not know: “This is a new indicator. Results are not available from previous years.” Fair enough.

The next goal is “Reduced methane emissions from the oil end gas sector”. The target is a 40% reduction relative to 2012, and we are going to achieve this by 2025. What is the base right now? “This is a new indicator. Results are not available from previous years.”

This goes back to what I have been saying about the current government. The Liberals talk a lot, but they are not getting anything done. In their own departmental plan, where the Treasury Board requires them to state reports and what they are trying to achieve, they have nothing.

The departmental result indicators go on with “Emissions reductions are being achieved under the Clean Fuel Standard building on the Renewable Fuels Regulations”. The target is “30 Mf annual GHG emissions reduction in 2030”. This is 30 Mf down from what? Well, it is down from previous years. What was it in previous year? “This is a new indicator. Results are not available from previous years.” Again, they are setting imaginary goals, almost aspirational goals, with nothing to actually compare them to. The departmental result indicators go on.

I have a lot of other stuff that I would love to go over, but I cannot. I would just say that we need to ensure that foreign investment and international business are attracted to Canada, and that Canadian businesses want to stay; that growth and responsibility happen together; and that innovation is championed across all sectors, not just the ones favourable to the government, but including oil and gas.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I had a great time working on the operations and estimates committee and reading those departmental reports with the hon. member.

With respect to the energy data and many of the metrics he was referring to, it is true that Canada does not have an energy information agency that has collected the years of data that would be necessary for us to determine some of these outcomes and measures. That is why, at present, the natural resources committee is undertaking a study of energy data so we can both set targets and collect data to determine whether or not we are meeting them.

In this regard, I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not his party is generally supportive of the direction that committee is taking, and whether or not he is supportive of the idea of Canada collecting, maintaining, distributing, and making available to the public energy data so that we can know whether or not we are meeting our greenhouse gas emission targets.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I used to live in St. John's East, in the member's riding. It is a beautiful part of town. I appreciate his comments and the time we spent together on the operations committee.

Yes, we do need the data, and that data should have been provided in the environment department's plan. We cannot judge how we are actually getting stuff done unless we have reasonable, true targets. It cannot simply be the aspirational targets that the Minister of Environment has provided in this basically useless plan, which violates the rules of what the Treasury Board has said should be in departmental plans.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech to be quite informative. When he talked about some of the targets of the environment minister, he illustrated how the minister and the government are all talk and no action. Indeed, it seems that the only thing the minister is capable of doing and saying is that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, as though that is enough.

The hon. member was cut short. He said he had more to say. I was very interested in what he was saying, so perhaps he could use this time to continue.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of other flaws in the departmental plan. My favourite is a table that reads, “Canadian communities economies and ecosystems are more resilient”, and that presents departmental results indicators that include the “Number of individuals, businesses, and governments accessing climate services and using that information to inform decision making”. It notes that the targets involve an “Increase from [the] baseline”.

What is the baseline? There is a little mark that says that the baseline will be established when the Canadian Centre for Climate Services has been functioning for a full year, and that it is expected it will become operational next year. Therefore, the baseline will be set two years from now.

Here are the departmental goals we are trying to achieve this year, and we will not even know what the government is saying is our target, because we will not set a baseline for two more years. We are expected to accept a plan from the government that has been rightly ridiculed by the commissioner. The government is telling us that it will not know what results we are trying to achieve for two years, but that we should accept the plan today for results and give it the money to spend now, with no planned outcomes.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton West is discussing the lack of available energy data, but of course after nine years of inaction the member is assuming that the minister can jump into the world ready with all of the answers. However, she is coming into her role after nine years of a government that did not believe in climate change. The government had not even collected any of the data for the baseline, and now he is attempting to blame the minister for having failed to have the data available for the baselining.

I find it quite an interesting response to my question of whether or not he agrees that we should collect the data for him to blame the minister for not collecting the data for the nine years prior to his being elected.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should collect the data. In our environment minister's departmental plans for 2014-15, the last year we were in power, we actually did have the data for all of our items. It is just for the two years since the Liberals took over that the data is blind.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-57.

I want to begin by addressing some comments made recently by a Liberal colleague about climate change. Statements that the previous government did not consider climate change a serious problem are absolutely false. The fact is that the targets we set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are the targets that the Liberals are using. The position of the previous government was that every country has to be part of the solution. That is what science tells us. If it is just Canada and a few select countries that are doing their fair share, we cannot address the issue of growing greenhouse gas emissions. The targets that the previous government set are the targets that are being used by the Liberal government.

In speaking to Bill C-57, my concern is not about the bill and the text of the bill. It is whether the government will act on the bill, and whether change is necessary.

Bill C-57 came about exactly 10 years ago. I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment. The minister was John Baird. The Liberal member who was retiring and leaving this place was John Godfrey. As the parliamentary secretary in that structure, I was tasked with meeting with John. We talked. There was work with the David Suzuki Foundation and others. What was proposed was considered, and there was give-and-take. We ended up with a bill, Bill C-474, and the government, under the minister of the environment, John Baird, supported that. We ended up with a good piece of legislation that everyone could support, and we moved it forward as a Parliament in 2008.

That gives us a glimpse into what happened under a previous Conservative government. In the committee structures, how did things work back then? There was work between the government in power and the opposition members. Unfortunately, we do not see that in the current government. It is sad. That is one of the reasons why there is a lack of trust. The government says that it will work with the opposition, but that is not what happens.

In the committee, members are not even permitted to ask questions. It was last week that the ministers came to answer questions about how they were going to spend the $7 billion of discretionary funds in the main estimates. The ministers came and made their speeches, and then down came the gavel to end the meeting so that the opposition members could not ask any questions. It was so undemocratic and so shocking.

That is how the Liberal government runs the House. In one day, it brought closure three times, and in the committees it does not permit the opposition members to do their work, representing Canadians and keeping the government accountable. The government refuses to let that happen in committees. It is very sad.

That did not happen in 2008, when we worked with a Liberal member, John Godfrey, and permitted him to introduce his bill. There was give-and-take, and we came up with what we could both agree on. The David Suzuki Foundation was part of that consultation.

We ended up with a good bill, the Sustainable Development Act. There are three parts to it. What we said, and what the current government is saying, is that we can have a healthy environment and we can have a healthy economy. We can do it, but there has to be social buy-in. Canadians have to buy in. The key to that is having all three. There has to be trust. Unfortunately, what is missing in Bill C-57 is trust.

There is a third body. There is the Commissioner of the Environment, who will do an assessment of what is happening. Is the government doing what it needs to? The Commissioner of the Environment gives us a report card. How is Parliament doing? How is the government doing?

As was noted previously, the spring 2018 audit by the commissioner stated:

...we found that the federal government is not ready to implement its commitments on sustainable development....

First, the federal government does not regularly balance the three pillars of sustainable development.

That is one of the reasons why it is failing. It then states:

Second, there is a lack of leadership for many sustainable development activities.

With respect to the lack of leadership, where is that source? What is the commissioner talking about? It is the government. It is the Prime Minister. It is the minister. There is no leadership. If the problem with the lack of sustainable development is that lens, why is it not happening? The commissioner is saying it is because of a lack of leadership. The government is not using the tools it has. That is the third reason he cites as follows:

the federal government has not implemented the tools it already has to assess the impacts of policy decisions on sustainable development.

The minister and the Prime Minister need to do their job. The government needs to work with members of the opposition and all parties. There needs to be respect and trust. Then what we already have in place would be working.

Under Liberal governments, we have seen a legacy of disrespect for Parliament and not getting it done. I am looking at reports by the Commissioner of the Environment done year after year. I do not have the time to go through all of them.

The 2002 report stated, “The Liberal government's sustainable development deficiency continues to grow.”

The 2003 report noted, “There is a gap between what the Liberal government said it would do and what it is actually doing. Good intentions and great announcements are not enough.”

The 2004 report asked, “Why is progress so slow after all the mandates and commitments were there? I am left to conclude that the reason is that there is a lack of leadership, a lack of priority and a lack of will.” It sounds like what was announced just weeks ago.

The 2005 report stated, “When it comes to protecting the environment bold announcements are made and then forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground.”

We have a problem. Because of lack of leadership, we are missing a sustainable development lens that includes a healthy environment; a strong, growing economy; and social buy-in. That is what the Commissioner of the Environment is saying. Can members imagine for a moment what the economy, the environment, and the social buy-in for a healthy economy and environment would look like if we had a Conservative government or a minister of the environment like the member for Abbotsford? I can only imagine how good it would be.

We became government in 2006. In 2011, we had efficiencies, appliances, and vehicles in place that helped reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is it was in 2008, 2009, and 2010 that emissions were going down because of efficiencies resulting from policies brought in by the previous Conservative government. I can only imagine that emissions would continue to go down when we get a change of government, when we get a Conservative government that respects Canadians, that works with Canadians, and uses common sense to create a growing environment and a growing economy. It is achievable and it will happen from 2019 onwards. I am excited because I know that with a Conservative government, we are going to get it done.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the end of my friend's speech he talked about GHG emissions and the record of the previous Conservative government, because it was under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper that we saw a real reduction in GHG in the neighbourhood of around 3%. I was wondering if the hon. member could compare the record of the previous Conservative government, which saw a real reduction by taking a sector-by-sector approach, compared to the record of the current government over the last two and a half years.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, during the early 2000s, a Jean Chrétien/Paul Martin Liberal government, emissions were growing. The Kyoto targets were set, they were ignored, and emissions continued to grow.

I remember Bob Mills who used to be a member of the environment committee. He warned the government not to set the targets artificially, that they should be based on science. However, Chrétien was involved and he allowed Bob Mills to go on one of those trips. The targets were set artificially and they were never achieved. Again, the commissioner was right: lots of announcements, lots of confetti, but no action.

It took a change of government in 2006 before emissions started to come down. The government started to listen, consult and determine how it could best reduce emissions. We set a world-class example. Sadly that has all ended. In the last three years, there has been a lot of bafflegab, a lot of announcements, and broken promises. The environment and the economy are too important.

The Prime Minister is saying in one part of the country that we have to shut down the oil sands. In another part of the country, he saying that we need to grow the oil sands. At one end of the country, he is funding protestors. At the other end of the country, he is buying pipelines. It is bizarre. It does not make sense. We need a change of government.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove's riding is right next to mine. We have a lot in common. We used to serve on city council together.

I appreciate the fact that he truly understands sustainability. He referenced greenhouse gases. Yes, we all acknowledge that greenhouse gases have to be addressed, but that does not mean we need a carbon tax. Sustainability does not necessarily mean we have to penalize Canadians by taxing them to death.

He and I both come from the province of British Columbia, where a carbon tax was implemented almost a decade ago. The target at the time was to reduce emissions by 2020 by 33%. Today, emissions are down by 2%. The carbon price is $35 per tonne. It is hurting British Columbians, but not achieving any measurable, truly substantial reductions in emissions.

I would gladly solicit the member's comments on whether a carbon tax has to be part of a sustainable approach to addressing some of the environmental challenges we have in Canada today.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, his question about putting a price on carbon is an important one. When we were discussing this in the early 2000s, the suggestion was maybe $15 a tonne, and then it went up to $50 a tonne. Now under the Liberal government, it could go to $100 tonne or $200 a tonne. That means possibly $3 or $4 a litre.

British Columbians in my neighbourhood are outraged by the price of fuel to heat their homes and drive their cars. However. the Liberal government has said it will raise the price on fuel as high as it has to go to get people out of their cars. They do not want people driving their cars anymore. That is not reality and the Liberals are wrong. The carbon tax they are proposing is hurting Canadians, and it needs to stop.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be supporting the bill and I want to explain why. It will make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent and more accountable to Parliament.

Among other things, the bill would make the government more transparent because it would expand the number of government entities that would be required to report to both houses of Parliament, and it would expand the information required in these reports to Parliament.

It would also make the government more accountable by establishing principles that need to be taken into account, such as the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the principle of intergenerational equity, which is important for meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

It also supports the principle of internalization, the whole idea that externalities in our economy, such as producing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, cannot continue to be free, that a price needs to be put on this pollution. We need to internalize those costs in our economic system to ensure we reduce emissions and pollution and ensure sustainable development.

The legislation is needed because the government is not doing a good enough job. It is not doing a good enough job in ensuring the efficient use of natural, social, and economic resources. It is not doing a good enough job with respect to the words in proposed subsection 5(a) to ensure that environmental, economic, and social factors are integrated in the making of all of the government's decisions.

We have an example of how the government is not doing that.

Today the Auditor General released his spring 2018 report on a variety of aspects related to what the government was doing. I want to point to report 4 in particular, which concerns Montreal's Champlain Bridge. I want to highlight what the Auditor General said in that report that determines the government is not taking into account environmental considerations when it makes its decisions.

In 2015, the government decided to remove the tolls from the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal, a project that is costing Canadians well over $4 billion, and a project that is going to replace the old Champlain Bridge. Here is the problem with the government removing the tolls. It not only created inequity in federal bridge policy across the country, where now now people who cross this $4-billion-plus bridge in Montreal will not have to pay a toll, but people crossing the Confederation Bridge between the mainland and Prince Edward Island will have to pay a toll of some $46. People who cross the new Gordie Howe bridge at the Detroit-Windsor crossing will have to pay a toll, but the people of Montreal will not have to pay a toll. Not only has it created this inequity and unfairness between the different regions on the country, it has also not ensured economic sustainability.

The Auditor General points out that the lost revenue from this decision will cost the consolidated revenue fund some $3 billion over the next 30 years. That is not economically sustainable.

It is also not environmentally sustainable, and this is where the government's decision-making is flawed.

The Auditor General has said in report 4 that the government's decision to eliminate the tolls on the new Champlain Bridge has had far-reaching implications. The elimination of tolls is expected to increase traffic volumes significantly by 20%. The Auditor General says that 50 million cars and trucks cross the Champlain Bridge each year. We all know this produces a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. Twenty-five percent of all greenhouse gases emitted in the country, which is far more than the oil and gas sector, come from the tailpipes of automobiles, trucks, and other modes of transportation.

The government took a decision that would directly increase the number of trucks and cars crossing that bridge, from 50 million to 60 million every year. In fact, 62 million, a 20% increase in 50 million, is about 10-plus million vehicles a year. We are looking at 10 million more vehicles crossing the Champlain Bridge every year, with the attendant greenhouse gas emissions, because of the government's decision to cancel the tolls on that bridge.

Not only did the Liberals create inequity for Prince Edward Islanders, southwestern Ontarians, and Montrealers, not only did they create economic non-sustainability because of a $3 billion loss to the consolidated revenue fund, they also did not abide by their own principles of environmental sustainability.

The Auditor General makes it quite clear that there will be a massive increase in traffic on the bridge, with the attendant greenhouse gas emissions. This is why the legislation is so very important. We need the government to be forced to walk the walk and to match its talk. It has been talking a good game about reducing emissions, but its actions belie that talk.

The Liberals committed to Mr. Harper's targets of May 2015 to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by some 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, but they are failing to meet that commitment—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that the House is in session. If they want to have conversations other than listen to what is going on, then they should take that into the lobby out of respect to the people who are speaking.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have failed to introduce actions that will meet that target. The $50 per tonne target they have established does not get us to the Paris accord targets. It does not get us anywhere near it.

The other actions they have taken, such as their confusion on the regulatory approval process for major and natural resource projects, belies their commitment to both moving ahead with the economy and the environment, moving ahead with sustainable development.

The actions of the Liberals on the Champlain Bridge demonstrate their lack of commitment to sustainable development, the idea that we can both develop the economy and protect the environment. Today's Auditor General report proves that very point.

That is why we need the legislation. It is time for the Liberals to uphold their talk and to deliver real actions that will meet those twin goals of growing our economy while protecting our environment.

This legislation is necessary. It is going to increase accountability and transparency. It is going to force the government to incorporate these things into its decision-making. It is going to force the government, when it looks at something like a Champlain Bridge toll, to realize that it should not be political gamesmanship to win political points. It also has to take into consideration the economic impacts on the fiscal framework, the $3 billion hole it has created now because of that flip decision to cancel the tolls on the Champlain Bridge.

The Liberals have to consider the environmental impacts. Because of their decision to cancel the tolls, we now see an increase in 10 million vehicles a year, a 20% increase of cars and trucks a year crossing that bridge, with the attendant increase in greenhouse gases. They have to take into account these considerations. No longer can they get away with making these trite political decisions that impact our children's economic and environmental futures.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am amazed my colleague was able to bring in the Auditor General's report from this morning on this issue.

One of the issues we have with the government, and my colleague talked about the hypocrisy, is the choosing of winners and losers. We are using taxpayers money to subsidize Toyota, one of the most profitable companies in the world. It makes cars that spew out greenhouse gases. At the same time, it is trying to end other industries, such as phasing out the oil sands.

Could my colleague discuss that in light of his conversation about the Champlain Bridge?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very valid point that a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon. Too often, the government has singled out the source of carbon rather than the carbon itself. If the carbon comes out of the oil and gas sector, that is seen as way worse than a tonne of carbon coming out of the tailpipe of one of the 15 million or 16 million commuters who go to work every morning. It sees a tonne of carbon coming out of a coal-fired electricity plant as somehow being worse than a tonne of carbon coming out of a cement factory in central Canada, or a tonne of carbon coming out of a natural gas facility being somehow worse than a tonne of carbon coming out of an automobile manufacturing plant in Ontario, whether that be Ford of Oakville, Linamar in Guelph, Toyota of Cambridge, Honda of Alliston, or the dozens of parts and assembly plants located in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor.

A tonne of carbon should be priced the same across the country. The oil and gas sector and the coal sector should not be singled out for unfair treatment vis-à-vis the other sectors, such as other large emitters in manufacturing or the millions of automobiles on the road.

The government's decision on the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, which will increase vehicular traffic by some 10 million cars and trucks every year, as stated in today's Auditor General's report, proves that the government treats one sector and one region of the country differently than others, and that is not fair.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-57. We are going to support this bill, but there are a lot of “buts”.

Let me explain. I have to say that what the Prime Minister did today with the Trans Mountain pipeline really bothered me. He is alienating all of the provinces. Everyone objected to the way he handled Kinder Morgan. The provinces are all realizing that they elected a prime minister who is all about appearances. He never takes any real action. He is someone who does things too quickly without ever listening to anyone. Canada is a democratic country, and ever since the Liberals took office the Prime Minister has been saying that he wants to hear our suggestions, but as soon as someone says something or disagrees with him, he throws a bit of a tantrum and stops being sensible. It is rather odd. He had allies in many of the provinces, but he is losing them because of his uninformed decisions.

That is too bad because we could have worked as a team here in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have eight minutes the next time this bill is debated in the House.

It being midnight, the House stands adjourned until later this day, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege it is to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-57. I might begin by saying that—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I want to help out the hon. member by asking members to take their conversations out into the lobbies. I am sure the hon. member for Perth—Wellington will appreciate it.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know all members are excited and intrigued to hear my commentary on Bill C-57. Why should we not be excited about debating in the House of Commons?

However, what is disappointing is that we are debating Bill C-57 once again under the guillotine of time allocation. In the last 48 hours, the Liberal government has used time allocation or closure on four separate bills or motions. Indeed one parliamentary expert on Twitter has referred to this fiasco as the closure supercluster of 2018. How many more closure or time allocation motions will it take before the Liberal government has a super-duper closure cluster of 2018? It is certainly well on its way to doing so.

We are into night sittings. We are here debating until midnight. We just had a time allocation vote at about 7:45 at night.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I was trying to hear the hon. member and I was having a hard time. I am sure everybody else wants to hear him.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the encouragement. I know hon. members may want to hear what I have to say on this matter.

We are into the last week of May and the final four weeks of our sitting. However, the Liberal government has wasted and squandered its parliamentary session. Now, as the deadline of the summer recess approaches, the Liberals are trying to ram through bills on the threat and guillotine of time allocation and closure, and that is wrong. Canadians expect us to come to this place and have a thorough debate on things that matter to them, yet we have time allocation and closure time and after time.

We are sitting until midnight, and I am happy to do so. I think all members here are willing to put in their time and do that work. However, I have to question how the Liberal government, which claims to be a family-friendly government and wants to see Parliament be a little more family friendly, thinks that having a vote at 7:45 at night is family friendly. Granted, as the father of an 11 day old, I am certainly used to being awake at all hours of the night, so it is not so bad. I would be happy to debate anyone at three o'clock in the morning if anyone is awake at that time.

Here we are in an evening sitting debating bills that clearly the government could have called and worked on. The bill before us has had relatively limited debate here at report stage. However, we, as the opposition, will be supporting Bill C-57, both at report stage and as it goes forward. I do want to commend our shadow minister, the member for Abbotsford, for his hard work on the bill. He was exceptionally eloquent when he spoke to the bill earlier in the session.

As Conservatives, we certainly believe in increased accountability. We are supporting the bill because it would provide a measure of increased accountability and increased reporting to Parliament. At the end of the day, Parliament is the ultimate arbiter. Therefore, providing that additional information and analysis to Parliament is important. The bill, with the amendment, would have a mandatory reporting requirement on a variety of matters, including environmental, economic, and social decision-making, and have that reported to Parliament.

As well, there are new enforcements. As Conservatives, we have always supported sustainable development. Many of our colleagues have been passionate about this matter and have spoken in and out of the House on it. Many of our colleagues have worked on this issue in the private sector and in their private lives for a number of years.

However, we do have some concerns with the bill. We have challenges with the increased number of paid advisory positions. These positions could be done on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately the bill would put paid advisory positions in the act. It is unfortunate, but at the same time it is something we will manage to deal with in supporting the bill.

It is a great opportunity as well to highlight that the amendment to the bill would be amending a bill that was first introduced in this place in 2008. At that time, it was introduced by our former colleague, the Hon. John Baird. This is an opportunity to highlight the good work that was done by Mr. Baird in his time as minister of the environment and the good work done by other Conservative environment ministers, including the member for Thornhill, who did an exceptional job during his time as minister of the environment.

As I said, we will be supporting Bill C-57. We are willing to see it move forward through report stage and third reading. If we look at our Conservative record on this bill, we supported the recommendations of the committee report that looked at the amendments to the legislation. We supported the committee report entitled “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations – A Report Following an Assessment of the Federal Sustainable development Act”. Sometimes we have reports with exciting titles, and this one rolls off the tip of the tongue and provides an exceptional basis from which to work.

I want to say a little about this committee report, and committee reports in general. Committees work best when they do so on a consensus basis. This was one of those reports that was achieved with a degree of consensus and reported back to the House with multi-partisan support. It is important that we, as the opposition, are able to do that. The challenge, however, is that so many committees are not working that way. We see that right now in the procedure and House affairs committee. We see the Liberal government trying to ram through changes to Canada's Elections Act without debate, without analysis, and without the time to fully hear from witnesses and to introduce amendments based on deliberations on the information from those witnesses. We should be hearing from Canadians on that matter. We should be hearing what they think is important when it comes to Canada's elections. We should be hearing how this issue will affect them on the ground, in their communities, at polling booths.

There will be an election in Ontario next Thursday. We should at least, as parliamentarians, be able to hear some of the stories and some of the options that have come out of that provincial election and the impact they may have on our federal legislation. We should be able to hear lessons learned and how they could benefit and improve that piece of legislation. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Liberals are intent on ramming through legislation, ramming it through committee, and enforcing it with limited debate on this important matter.

That was not the case with Bill C-57. There was a previous committee report that analyzed this issue. However, now, when we have the opportunity to debate this at report stage, we have the guillotine. We have forced time allocation. Indeed, tonight we can only debate this issue for another 40 minutes. I have already used up eight or nine minutes of that time. There are only about 32 minutes left for members of the House to debate this piece of legislation. That is unfortunate, because I know that many of my colleagues could speak on this issue at great length, for the full 10 minutes of their time, or perhaps longer if they were given that time. However, unfortunately, we are being constrained to about 31 minutes to debate this issue. That is wrong.

I see I am down to one minute now to finish my comments. I am reminded of a famous writer who said that he did not have time to write a short letter, so he wrote a long letter instead. I feel like I am in the middle of a long speech, and I am being cut off early. I am so disappointed that the Liberals are cutting off debate on Bill C-57.

To conclude, the Conservative opposition will be supporting the bill at report stage, but under great duress, because we have been forced to debate this within the confines of time allocation, which is truly unfortunate. I look forward to questions from hon. members on this important matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way said he is prepared to continue the debate until 3 o'clock in the morning. It is interesting that he would make that kind of comment, when just a couple of hours ago, the Conservative Party voted that we stop working for the day. I suspect that he might be a minority of the caucus and that he lost that vote in the back room.

Having said that, I would really appreciate a better understanding of something. The member for Abbotsford, the person he gave credit to, moved a Conservative amendment at committee. He got the committee membership to support the amendment, and it passed. Now the bill is before us at report stage, and what did the member for Abbotsford do? He moved another amendment to delete the amendment he moved in committee. It does not make any sense whatsoever. I wonder if my colleague and friend can explain why the member for Abbotsford moved the amendment in the first place, if they do not want it in at report stage.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we actually call that move a Lamoureux. It is not the member's name. It is just a general term we use.

I just want to clarify the record. The member for Abbotsford did not move such a motion at committee, and that should be on the record. However, it does give me an opportunity to talk about the member for Abbotsford, who is one of the hardest-working members of our caucus. It is he who is holding these Liberals to account on important issues, like the Liberals ramming a carbon tax down the throats of Canadians. It is the member for Abbotsford who brought home the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, one of the things the Liberals tried to mess up, and nearly did. It is thanks to that member, who brought home that important trade deal, expanding our markets. It is that hon. member who deserves a lot of credit for all the good work we did on the trade file.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the matter of committees in general and the experience of committees.

This committee worked on a consensus basis. Other committees sometimes do not. The previous intervention talked about other votes that have taken place. I wonder if this member could maybe explain to the member for Winnipeg North, or anyone else here, that these events do not happen in isolation.

What is going on at PROC right now is a disgrace. It is shameful. There are repercussions. We only have limited tools as an opposition, limited tools to deal with a government that is determined to unilaterally act against the best interests of Canadian voters by changing the system without the consent of other parties.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. These events do not happen in isolation. The vote to adjourn earlier today was a matter of protest against the heavy hand of the Liberal government.

Let us see what the Liberal government has done. It introduced Motion No. 6 in June 2016 to basically take away all the tools of the opposition. Last spring, it introduced, and tried to ram through, changes to the Standing Orders unilaterally, forcing a three-week filibuster in the procedure and House affairs committee, not to disrupt but to preserve the rights and privileges of parliamentarians. That is what we are here to do. It is our right and duty to defend those rights.

Now we see it happening once again in the procedure and House affairs committee. The Liberals have tried to introduce a motion with a guillotine, forcing limited debate, next to no debate, in fact, and forcing amendments to be tabled before we have even finished hearing from witnesses. We have not even heard from any witnesses outside of departmental officials. We heard a limited response from the minister. We are still waiting for responses from the minister on how she bungled the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer. The government made one appointment, and then it appointed someone else, with virtually no consultation other than a letter saying that this was who they were nominating. That is wrong.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate in that there are rare occasions when I agree with the government. There are elements of Bill C-57 I am in agreement with, but I am going to talk about some concerns about the ideological creep of the Liberal Party into the legislation of Canada. By “ideological creep”, I do not refer to any hon. members. I refer to a creeping barrage of ideology that is actually not rooted in science. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is seemingly unaware of global concerns with respect to some of the things being put in legislation.

Why I agree with elements of Bill C-57 is that they are rooted in the work of the last Conservative government. In 2008, as my colleague from Perth—Wellington mentioned, the Conservative government passed it. There was a lot of good work done by John Baird at that time, and it has been continued. That is the basis of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. It is based on the sustainable development goals the United Nations started with the Rio declaration, right through to the UN agenda 2030. We certainly see a benefit to many social and economic considerations going into the sustainable development goals of a country.

When looking at an environmental plan, considering economic aspects of that plan, the impact on communities, and social development is prudent as one is planning. There are many departments within the federal government planning to meet the sustainable development goals articulated by the UN, and they are coming up with plans to do that.

I would note that the government has appointed a commissioner, who I wish well in her role, Ms. Julie Gelfand. We all wish her well in terms of working with federal government departments, particularly the Department of National Defence, which has large tracts of green space and lands in Canada, to make sure that we minimize the impact on the environment, make our operations sustainable, and operate with the future in mind of handing over the country we inherited to our children. There is a lot of agreement on that, and I will agree with those goals in this legislation.

I have three areas of concern I am going to keep my remarks to, because I do not like spending too much time on agreement with Liberals in this place. My friends will start questioning my loyalty.

The first area is the typical Liberal approach. There has been concern expressed by my colleague, the member for Abbotsford, and others that it seems the minister is going to continue to expand the paid advisory councils the government will rely upon. We know, going back to the days explored by Justice Gomery, that when there are gatherings of advisers, on a range of issues, being paid and being dependent on contracts and the goodwill of the government, it actually breeds a lack of accountability. We have already seen that, with the Prime Minister being the first sitting prime minister in Canada to have been found to have violated ethics legislation that governs this case. The finance minister has two pending investigations.

We do not think there should be that approach, with these friends of the Liberals being paid advisers. That should be arm's length, and we should rely upon Ms. Gelfand and her department to provide that advice. We have exceptional civil servants, so I do not like the approach we see the Liberals resorting to too often.

I commented that there are elements I said I agree with in Bill C-57. They are certainly rooted in the work done by the Conservative government, such as instilling the polluters pay principle and a number of tangible things that will have benefits. They will show that everyone in our country, including corporations, will need to be good and responsible stewards, and those principles enshrine that.

However, there has been a lot of window dressing from the government when it comes to the environment. We almost groan when we hear the minister say that the environment and the economy go together. It has just become rote language. However, I want to show how it is now also window dressing.

The minister herself said, in debate on Bill C-57, that the bill “would shift focus in the Federal Sustainable Development Act from planning” to reporting results. If we are looking at reporting results when it comes to our environmental goals and sustainable development, what were the comments of Julie Gelfand in her first appearance at committee on Bill C-57, and later, her comments with respect to the government's environmental plan?

If we are trying to say reporting results is what the government wants through this legislation, what did the Commissioner for Sustainable Development report on the government's progress on the environment? Here is her report on results:

We concluded that Environment and Climate Change Canada...measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions contained in this plan had yet to be implemented.

She went on to confirm that the government “did not make progress” with respect to any of its greenhouse gas emission targets. This is another case of the Liberals talking a very good game—whether in legislation, whether in debate outside of the chamber—but if we look at results, which is what the minister wants the bill to do for all departments of the federal government, we see they are failing. The commissioner actually reported a failing grade to the government.

If we combine that with the Auditor General's most recent report, which says that under this government there is basically no ability to implement projects, it should concern all Canadians. I know it concerns many of the civil servants who have had trouble getting paid and families having to help out their children, but it is a fundamental thing when the Auditor General in such strong language calls out the Liberals' inability to actually implement projects.

I hope the minister moves beyond the rhetoric of “the environment and the economy go together”, because we want to see results. Rhetoric we get enough of. We want to actually see some tangible results, and if Bill C-57 can do that, I am very happy that it will be part of our sustainable development discussion for the next number of years.

My final concern is the ideological creep that I see with the government, because in a similar fashion to Bill C-55 on the oceans act, this bill also creeps the precautionary principle into federal legislation. The old approach of the Conservative government enshrined the polluter pay model, and it is very obvious what that is: if there is an impact on our environment that is negative and it is clear who the polluter is, the polluter will pay to remediate that impact on our environment. The polluter pay principle is in this legislation, but Liberals are inserting the precautionary principle, and that is troubling because it is pseudoscience. The precautionary principle actually says, “Let us not wait until we have final scientific evidence to make public policy; let us just make it if we feel good.”

I will illustrate this with a quote. I know the front bench of the Liberal Party enjoyed their trip to see President Obama. They were downright giddy. What did Obama's chief scientific adviser say about the precautionary principle? He said that the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent.

If we are talking about sustainable development and goals, we should be talking about science-based evidence. That was something the Liberals used to say in opposition a lot, but now in several pieces of federal legislation they are enshrining a policy principle that is not rooted in science. It is rooted in rhetorical appeal. It is rooted in feeling good. It is virtue-signalling, something we see every day from the government.

We should see a science-based approach. Whether it comes to sustainable development, our oceans, or marijuana, we should not be legislating and regulating because of an ideological view. While I support the goals of Bill C-57, it is this creeping barrage of Liberal ideology that they are secretly inserting into things. They have a condescension of the left that is troubling to people who have worked in the private sector, people who rely on science and evidence, as I do. Their attitude is that if we do not agree with them, we are somehow un-Canadian, or wrong, or as the Prime Minister says, we are being partisan. Is it partisan to ask for science before making decisions?

I would say in overall support that I am happy that there are elements to work together on, but I would like to alert Canadians to this ideological creep of the Liberal Party, which will set Canada back in the long term.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always enlightening to hear the hon. member for Durham speak in this place, particularly when it comes to sustainability. I am very interested in his reading of sustainability.

The member mentioned an ideological creep. I am thinking about the global 2030 agenda, which Canada signed on to under our government but which really was ignored under the previous government, and the United Nations 17 sustainable development goals that we are also following. Personally, I have triple bottom-line goals as I manage my constituency work, my work on the Hill, and having a net-zero office and things like that around social, environmental, and economic sustainability.

In this bill, we are looking at moving from 26 government organizations, departments, and agencies to over 90 federal development agencies that will have to act together in working on common interests toward sustainable solutions. I wonder whether the hon. member thinks that working with the United Nations standard is good, or whether it is better just to fudge it through, the way the previous government was doing.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I think Canada should govern on its own, and where we can work collectively with multilateral organizations, including the UN, we should, and we should take some guidance and some education from them and share in a number of goals.

However, I have seen, including in the debate on Bill C-47 today, that the Liberals, in their pursuit of the Security Council seat, almost seem willing to outsource our legislative agenda to another body. I would remind the member that this month the UN committee on disarmament is going to be chaired by Syria. The only country to actually use chemical weapons is now chairing the body to prevent the use of chemical weapons.

What we should do is work on the sustainable development goals, but also take ownership of our own house. The polluter pay principle does that.

When it comes to the 90 agencies the member mentioned, I do have some concerns. When the Auditor General says that the government cannot manage a project in a fashion that would be acceptable to the levels set by the Auditor General, we should be worried when we are foisting more challenges on more departments. Therefore, while I share the sustainable development goals we have, my concern is we have to be able to deliver. We own our own responsibility, and we should not think that signing on to something globally negates our ability to legislate here in Canada.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with my colleague's comments on not only this bill but some of the rhetoric, I wonder if he has some concerns that the only thing we are hearing with regard to the environment is the reduction of greenhouse gases and climate change.

While those aspects are very important, we are not hearing anything about clean air, clean land, or clean water. There seems to be a total absence in that regard.

Let me just give one example of why that is important. We focused on noxious gases and particulate in the air because 6,000 to 8,000 Canadians die every year because of bad air. We had a significant reduction in particulate and in noxious and SOx gases, to the degree that when the member for Don Valley West was the president of the Asthma Society of Canada, he confided in me and said that our government was doing a very good job at reducing particulate.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the one-sided aspect of the environment that the current government focuses on. We had to come in after 20 years and finally clean up the Sydney tar ponds and finally deal with the number one hotspot in the Great Lakes in Hamilton. We finally got the job done. I am just wondering if the member has a concern about a holistic approach to environment.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook is passionate and knowledgeable, and he is absolutely right. The environment is more than just GHG target goals, which can be met in two ways. They can do it the wrong way, which is taxing seniors and people who have to commute, or they can work on stepping down the emissions of large emitters, a much more practical way that is not a carbon tax. However, the Liberals seem focused entirely on a tax.

That ignores entirely particulate matter, hazardous chemicals, and cleanup of sites such as Sydney and in our Arctic. It ignores sustainable practices in wildlife and in forestry. We should be proud of an entire and total environmental package. That should be part of our sustainable development goals, not just as a nation but as a society.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be joining the debate on Bill C-57, although I must agree with my Conservative colleagues that it is unfortunate to be doing it under the yoke of time allocation.

It is a strategy that the federal government seems to be employing quite a bit this week. I was having an exchange with the member for Perth—Wellington earlier today about this resembling a student who has missed the due date for his homework and has suddenly realized it is coming up and he had better rush things. We have been wasting time over February, March, April, and May, and now we are almost into June. If we look at the parliamentary calendar, we see that time is suddenly short, so the Liberals are feeling the need to engage in these draconian tactics to limit the ability of members to be here on behalf of their constituents. Every single one of these seats represents a unique geographic area of Canada, and the people of Canada deserve to have their voices and concerns raised in this House by the members who represent them.

That said, let us now turn to the bill before us, Bill C-57.

I want to compliment my friend and colleague, the member for the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. She has decades of experience in the field of environmental sustainability. When she speaks to our caucus or delivers speeches in this House or at committee, people listen, because they realize this member has the experience and the knowledge. Very rarely have I seen people contradict her, because they know that she is usually right. She has the experience to back it up.

I want to walk the House through a bit of the history of how we got to Bill C-57. We would have to go back to the spring of 2016, when the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed the current act. There is a mandate in the act that it has to be reviewed every certain number of years. I believe it is every three years. That is just to make sure that it is staying up to date with the changing nature of Canada, to see if we are meeting our goals or if anything needs to be tweaked, and to see if the government has been doing a good job in following the existing act. That is why it is important.

As a part of this review, the committee, as committees usually do, brought forth witnesses to testify with respect to the current act and present some recommendations for ideas for reform. Witnesses at the committee found the current act lacking in two important ways. First, unlike the definition of “sustainable development”, it focuses on environmental decision-making and ignores the social and economic pillars of sustainable development; second, the purpose is about transparency and accountability for environmental decision-making, rather than about advancing sustainable development. The committee agreed with those significant shortcomings and recommended that the act be amended to require the development of an effective federal strategy that will inspire, in equal measure, environmental, social, and economic advancement toward a better future, something I think that all members in this House can very much agree to.

The unfortunate thing with the bill before us, Bill C-57, is that it only partially addresses these deficiencies and recommendations. It is important to note that the updated law should reflect the broader UN sustainable development goals, which have been endorsed by Canada.

I want to list some key things that came about after that study, because when Bill C-57 made it to the committee, the Liberal government did not even listen to its own members of Parliament on that committee. It did not even listen to the recommendations that had come from the environment committee. That is a real shame, because suddenly we have Liberals recommending something, only to see their government completely ignore it. That action shows that the government is not committed to delivering on its commitments under the broad UN sustainable development goal to ensure the whole of government ensures that its laws and policies reflect environmental, social, and economic needs.

I want to drill down on that, because the member for Edmonton Strathcona really was faced with a Herculean task. Many of my colleagues who sit on committees know this. Since the NDP has just one spot on a 10-member committee, that one member does not have the luxury of teamwork with other MPs. The work often falls upon us, so when it comes to the amending stage of a bill, the clause-by-clause part of a bill, it is a pretty big task.

I can remember doing that last year at the justice committee when I was the justice critic for our party, especially when it came to Bill C-46. That was a gargantuan justice bill, and my staff and I were pretty busy on that.

Going back to the matter at hand, Bill C-57, almost all of the amendments by the member for Edmonton Strathcona at committee were based on three things: recommendations from the Commissioner of the Environment, recommendations from expert witness testimony at the committee, and recommendations from the committee itself.

She had three very good arguments behind her recommendations. What did the Liberal-dominated committee do? It voted down those amendments, flying in the face of the evidence. The government likes to pride itself on evidence-based decision-making. I have yet to hear a coherent answer from the government side as to why the Liberals did that to the amendments of the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, when they knew she has years of experience and that her amendments were based on solid evidence. We have still not received any good reasons on that.

The House voted today, historically I might add, for Bill C-262, which was moved by my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It was a historic moment for the House of Commons, because that private member's bill passed third reading and commits the federal government to ensuring that all laws are in compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One of the amendments by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona was to ensure that Bill C-57 actually included a reference to UNDRIP. However, that was voted down. Then the Liberals decided they would vote in favour of the bill that is now going to mandate adherence to UNDRIP. Canadians should try to work their way through the reasoning behind that. I am still having some problems doing it.

That said, UNDRIP has passed this House. It is going to the other place now. I wish senators well. I certainly hope they will look at the hard work we did here in the House of Commons that recognize that in 2018, we are at a place in this great country where we can no longer afford to play the role of a colonizer. We have to make sure that first nations in Canada are the full and equal partners they very much deserve to be. It is only when we make sure that all of our federal laws recognize that implicitly that we will be able to move beyond our past—never forgetting it, but moving beyond it—to a place where most people would like us to be.

I know that my time on this bill is short, so I just want to end with this. The day that the Minister of Environment moved time allocation on this bill was Tuesday, the very day the Liberal government announced it was purchasing the Kinder Morgan pipeline for $4.5 billion. That is just the price tag for the existing infrastructure. There is no word on the cost of expanding the pipeline. I just think that when the environment minister is moving to shut down debate on a bill that seeks to bring federal departments in compliance with sustainable development goals and yet buys a pipeline, which is infrastructure that rightly belongs in the 20th century, it makes a mockery of the government's real commitment to addressing climate change.

I would dearly like to know what federal department is going to be in control of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and how it can possibly justify its sustainable development when it is going to be operating something that makes a mockery of our climate change commitments.

This being 2018, with all of the evidence of climate change all around us, we certainly need this country to be taking a firm and strong direction in addressing climate change. I think everyone who looks to future generations knows that we owe them that at this moment in time.

I will conclude there. I have appreciated this opportunity to speak to Bill C-57. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues and friends.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by congratulating the member, along with all members of the House, for gaining a share of the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are all owners together now of a project that would have been profitable had the government just stayed out of the way and provided certainty to the company who owned it before.

Members often disagree in the House. We on this side of the House are Conservatives who believe in a free market and think there is a way to manage the balance between the economy and the environment. We are talking tonight about the Federal Sustainable Development Act. New Democrats have a different point of view on reaching that fine balance. Does the member feel that this legislation finds that balance?

What does the member think of the government now being in the potential business of exporting oil sands energy to the west coast, all the while talking a good game about promoting environmental stewardship, which I think is quite possible? Obviously the member has a different point of view as a New Democrat. Could he comment further on this dichotomy that has been created by the Liberals?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we in the NDP do have different views on why this is a bad idea.

What I will say to workers in Alberta, my brother being one of them involved in the industry, is that stopping the Kinder Morgan expansion will not stop the oil sands from working right now, and no one in the House wants that.

Furthermore, Kinder Morgan was devised at a time when oil prices were around $100 a barrel. It is exporting diluted bitumen, which is the rawest form of the product, and we are not getting any value for this. If we want our oil industry to be sustainable, then we should sell it for the most value possible, not bargain basement prices.

If we are going to talk about Canada's energy security as a country, it does not involve building a pipeline that will direct exports to China. This will not in any way lead to Canada's energy security. That makes a mockery of the government's sustainable development goals, especially in light of Bill C-57.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot in the House about the carbon tax. Some people have said it is going to create sustainability, that it is going to do this or that. I would like the member's personal view on that.

From what we have seen in the last couple of days with $4.5 billion going to Kinder Morgan and things like that, does the member think that the government is going to take the money from the carbon tax and put it into technologies that will make development more sustainable? Many Canadians are hoping that is what the government will do with their hard-earned dollars. Does the member think the government will put that money aside, or does he believe the money will just go into the coffers and be ill-spent?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion about the carbon tax at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We heard from a lot of witnesses, farmers in particular, who are quite concerned about the impact the carbon tax will have on their operations. I very much empathize with those farmers.

For those who are in industries and businesses that are still very reliant on fossil fuels for their operations, I think there is a way to design the carbon tax to mitigate the worst effects on them while also respecting the need to put a price on pollution. Putting higher prices on this starts to change the conversation. I am from Vancouver Island and gas is selling at $1.50 a litre there. That certainly has led to my constituents thinking about how fast they can get an electric car, because they say these prices are killing them.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate in this late hour on Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Of course, as other members have said, including the member for Abbotsford, we will be supporting this piece of legislation.

In preparing for the debate, I went through past commentary by other members, including the member for Abbotsford, and really, what else is there to add? He went over every single point and report that rebutted many of the talking points the Liberal government has put forward in defending its environmental record and so-called achievements. They are achievements in name, mostly. He went through it very well, so there is really nothing more I can contribute in illuminating the debate in that sense.

However, there is one part of it that I do want to delve into and spend more time on. It is the part where the member for Abbotsford referenced a report, which, in his words, “is supposed to marry the environment and the economy”. He questioned why the government had completely forgotten about the economic component. He said it was unbelievable, and I agree with him.

We have heard time and time again in the House this metaphor alluding to the economy and the environment going hand in hand. All I have seen so far is posturing by the Liberals when it comes to the environment, and very little focus on the economy. We have seen over the past two and a half years one thing happen, and one thing only, which is this two-handed concept. Why are both of those hands in my pockets? Both hands are in the pockets of taxpayers.

On one side are carbon taxes. On one side is a higher cost of living, so-called, to pay for environmental reasons and environmental targets, so-called. At the end of the day, it is always about more revenue. On the other side are higher small business taxes, higher payroll taxes, or higher taxes period, across the board, with a higher cost of living for most Canadians today. Think tanks have said this. Independent reports have said this, and I am sure every single member of the House could attest to the fact that they have received emails, letters, and phone calls from constituents who are saying that the cost of living has gone up significantly.

Why are both of those hands, supposedly the economy and the environment, when managed by the federal government, the Ottawa Liberals, in the pockets of taxpayers? They are in our pockets. Everyone in Canada is paying more because of the government's decision-making. There are job losses in the energy sector.

I know that members hear all the time that Statistics Canada is saying that the job numbers are better. However, the comparison is being made between the loss of an engineering job paying maybe $150,000 to $200,000 in Calgary and then maybe a job working in retail for $50,000.

What about underemployment? It is something that Statistics Canada and stats in general have a very difficult time catching. I can give example after example in my own riding in Calgary, and even wider than the Calgary area, of individuals who have been impacted by the drastic slowdown in the energy sector, which was initially caused by lower prices, and then prolonged by bad government policy, both provincially and federally, making things far worse for far longer than they needed to be.

I have heard the debate in the House thus far on Bill C-57, including an exchange earlier today. Members know that I like Yiddish proverbs. One of them is “What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your tongue.” I see this happening on that side of the House all the time. They make it up as they go along.

This brings me to the next point, which I will spend some more time on. The Trans Mountain pipeline is the perfect example of this. Supposedly, in the name of getting it right and finding the right balance between the economy and the environment, the only way the Liberals can do this is by expropriating Kinder Morgan and forcing the company. It would have been one of the most profitable portions of the energy sector to transport the goods to the market. The Liberals made it unprofitable by getting in the way at every single junction, and by undermining the legitimate process by which a company, shareholders, and members of the public can arrive at a reasonable decision. They can disagree without being disagreeable through a regulator, define approval, and move the project forward.

Instead, with the encouragement of the federal government, the Liberals on that side, protesters, third-party groups, many foreign-funded, then went out and undermined the rule of law and the legal process by which the pipeline was approved. Now we have a situation.

The economy and the environment supposedly go hand in hand. However, both of the government's federal hands are now taking Kinder Morgan's pipeline. The Liberals are saying that in the name of getting it built, the only thing they can do, the only way we can get it done is by taking on 100% of the risk for $4.5 billion, and that is just to buy the old pipeline. Now we are talking about building the actual pipeline expansion itself.

However, the court proceedings will still go ahead. The obstruction of a provincial government will still continue. The obstruction of a legally approved pipeline will continue to go ahead, because nothing has changed. We have seen it in the media, with quote after quote from protester leaders, from certain but not all indigenous groups, and from civic leaders who say they will continue to oppose it, that it makes no difference. However, now every one of us is on the hook for cost overruns, for cost failures, for potential strikes, for workers' health and safety, and for the extra spending to ensure they can work in a safe environment while they build this pipeline, even if it goes ahead.

This $4.5 billion that the Canadian taxpayer is giving to the shareholders of Kinder Morgan Canada is going to do what? It is going to go and finance competitor pipelines. The state of Texas will become the largest producer of oil in the world. I always joke about the state of Texas. I call it “Alberta Junior”. That is what it is to me in my heart. Texas calls us in the reverse. So many Canadians who worked in the energy sector in Calgary, Edmonton, and Fort McMurray are working there today.

Where was that focus on getting the environment and the economy right? Did that involve the brain drain, the escape, the exile, of tens of thousands of Canadian energy workers to Dallas and Houston? Was that the purpose? Is that how we get the balance right? The Liberals failed miserably, despite this legislation, which we will support.

As I mentioned, what our eyes do not see, do not invent with our tongues, but they are inventing. The Liberals are inventing a narrative that simply does not exist, because they do not have the balance right. They did not get it right with the economy and the environment. If they did, they would not be getting into the business of owning and operating a pipeline.

Seven thousand kilometres of pipeline has been cancelled under the Liberals' watch, not our watch. They are the ones who failed to achieve it. They are the ones who did not get it to move forward. However, now they will be able to build their own pipeline. The future health of the Alberta government's finances now rest in the hands of the federal government, which is a position I guarantee 90% of Albertans will be against.

We are adamantly against it, because we have seen this type of behaviour before, 40 years ago with the national energy plan. This is the second version of it, getting it wrong again. The Liberals do not know where to find the balance between the two. They will continue to back their allies in the environmental movement, the activists, and those who they continuously back in illegal activities because they need their help to win elections.

We will support this proposed legislation. However, on the continuous use of the environment and the economy go hand in hand, the Liberals actually have to live it and they have to do it. Buying pipelines, expropriating pipelines, is not the way to achieve it. We should never have been in the position where the taxpayer of Canada would have to be on the hook for up to $12 billion of new spending.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Calgary Shepard, who adroitly set out to deconstruct that worn-out Liberal platitude about the environment and the economy going hand in had. It is patently obvious that they do, because we human beings come from the environment, our resources come from the environment, and the economy comes from the environment.

The economy is both a process and a product of the environment we live in. The resources we export, such as oil, are natural resources that come from the environment. The Liberals' platitude is purely political PR.

As I recall, under the Conservative government, we did not sweet-talk anyone. We took concrete action that produced excellent results. For example, we reduced Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2% while we grew the GDP by 16%.

I would like the member for Calgary Shepard to tell us more about the strides our government made on both the environmental and economic fronts.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before going to the hon. member for Calgary—Shepard, I want to remind hon. members that there are no rules preventing people from one side to go to the other side to speak. There are rules that prevent members from shouting or talking loudly across. It makes it difficult to hear the hon. member.

Let us hear what the hon. member for Calgary—Shepard has to say.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his question.

Indeed, the previous government was very successful at balancing the environment and the economy. Even though the members across the aisle, the Liberals, keep denying it, the member is correct in saying that greenhouse gases decreased by 2% and the economy kept growing.

Four pipelines were approved and supported by the previous government, which knew how to balance environmental objectives and the economy. Our growth was quite good, even in the midst of a massive recession that significantly affected Canadian businesses and workers. The previous government was able to balance the budget and create 1.4 million jobs in Canada after the recession, giving Canada's middle class a major boost.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague certainly highlighted the fact that the legislation would ensure that government decisions would not only reviewed through the lens of the environment, but also through a social lens as well as the lens of the economy. There is a certain irony that we are in the House debating this legislation. The Liberal government of course has it brought forward, which is strongly supported, but the Liberals do not even take their own advice. They generally do not understand how important it is to view decisions the government makes through the lens of the economy.

We have seen that with the incredible flight of capital in Canada. Canada used to be the most desired destination in the world for foreign investors. Today, we are among the least desired investment destinations among the developed countries. I would be interested to hear my colleague's comments on what could have contributed to that dramatic decline in confidence in Canada's economy.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a series of policy decisions the government has taken, some legislative, some regulatory. We could talk about the tanker ban off the west coast. It was totally a political decision, not based on very much of any science. It hurt the prospective investment decisions that companies were going to make in Canada. We could talk about the carbon tax, which seriously hurt the cost of living for all Canadians, because we are all paying higher taxes now.

We could also talk about decisions, such as Bill C-69, which did immense damage to the regulatory process. In fact, if I remember correctly, a very senior official at Suncor, I believe it was the CEO, said that no new project would be built under that model because it gave the Minister of Environment and Climate Change so much power to cancel projects.

What company could be blamed for not wanting to take on an immense amount of risk? At the end of the day, the board of directors and executive teams are responsible to the shareholders who invested in it. I would not invest in Canada either if I were being told by the members opposite that I would have to jump through as many hoops and they would decide afterward if I did it well enough.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the House, on Wednesday, May 30, at 8:45. I should mention that it is 8:45 p.m., for the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who I am sure are tuning in. To all my constituents, good evening.

We are debating this evening because the Liberal government tabled very few significant government bills over the winter. Instead, they tabled an astounding number of private members' bills on things like swallows' day and beauty month. Sometimes my colleagues and I can hardly help laughing at this pile of utterly trivial bills. I also think that this process of randomly selecting the members who get to table bills is a bit past its prime. Maybe it should be reviewed. At the same time, I understand that it is up to each member to decide what kind of bill is important to him or her.

The reason we have had to sit until midnight for two days now is that, as my colleague from Perth—Wellington said, the government has been acting like a typical university student over the past three months. That comparison is a bit ridiculous, but it is true. The government is behaving like those students who wait until the last minute to do their assignments and are still working on them at 3 a.m. the day before they are due because they were too busy partying all semester. Members know what I mean, even though that paints a rather stereotypical picture of students; most of them do not do things like that.

In short, we have a government that, at the end of the session, has realized that time is running out and that it only has three weeks left to pass some of its legislative measures, some of which are rather lengthy bills that are key to the government's legislative agenda. One has to wonder about that.

The Liberals believe these bills to be important. However, because of their lack of responsibility over the past three months, we were unable to debate these major bills that will make significant changes to our society. Take for example, Bill C-76, which has to do with the electoral reforms that the Liberals want to make to the voting system, the way we vote, protection of the vote, and identification. There is also Bill C-49 on transportation in Canada, a very lengthy bill that we have not had time to examine properly.

Today we are debating Bill C-57 on sustainable development. This is an important topic, but for the past three years I have been getting sick and tired of seeing the Liberal government act as though it has a monopoly on environmental righteousness. I searched online to get an accurate picture of the record of Mr. Harper's Conservative government from 2006 to 2015, and I came across some fascinating results. I want to share this information very honestly with the House and my Liberal colleagues so that they understand that even though we did not talk incessantly about the environment, we achieved some excellent concrete results.

I want to read a quote from www.mediaterre.org, a perfectly legitimate site:

Stephen Harper's Canadian government released its 2007 budget on March 19. The budget allocated $4.5 billion in new investments to some 20 environmental projects. These measures include a $2,000 rebate for all electronic-vehicle or alternative-fuel purchases, and the creation of a $1.5-billion EcoTrust program to help provinces reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals often criticize us for talking about the environment, but we did take action. For example, we set targets. We proposed reducing emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Liberals even retained these same targets as part of the Paris agreement.

They said we had targets, but no plan. That is not true. Not only did we have the $1.5-billion ecotrust program, but we also had a plan that involved federal co-operation.

Allow me to quote the premier of Quebec at the time, Jean Charest, who was praising the plan that was going to help Quebec—his province, my province—meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Jean Charest and Mr. Harper issued a joint press release.

Mr. Harper said, “Canada's New Government is investing to protect Canadians from the consequences of climate change, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” He was already recognizing it in 2007.

Mr. Charest said, “In June 2006, our government adopted its plan to combat climate change. This plan has been hailed as one of the finest in North America. With Ottawa contributing financially to this Quebec initiative, we will be able to achieve our objectives.”

It was Mr. Charest who said that in 2007, at a press conference with the prime minister.

I will continue to read the joint press release from the two governments, “As a result of this federal funding, the Government of Quebec has indicated that it will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent below its anticipated 2012 level.”

What is more, the $1.5-billion ecotrust that was supposed to be allocated and was allocated to every province provided $339 million to Quebec alone. That was going to allow Quebec to engage in the following: investments to improve access to new technologies for the trucking sector; a program to develop renewable energy sources in rural regions; a pilot plant for production of cellulosic ethanol; promotion of geothermal heat pumps in the residential sector; support for technological research and innovation for the reduction and sequestration of greenhouse gases. This is probably one of those programs that is helping us make our oil sands increasingly environmentally friendly by allowing us to capture the carbon that comes from converting the sands to oil. There are also measures for the capture of biogas from landfill sites, for waste treatment and energy recovery, and finally for Canada ecotrust.

I invite our Liberal colleagues to listen to what I am going to say. In 2007, Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said the following: “We are pleased to see that after negotiating for more than a year, Quebec has finally obtained the money it needs to move towards meeting the Kyoto targets.”

Who made it possible for Quebec to move towards meeting its Kyoto objectives? It was the Harper government, a Conservative government, which established the $1.5-billion ecotrust fund in 2007 with monies from the budget surplus.

Not only did we have a plan to meet the targets we proposed, but this was also a plan that could only be implemented if the provinces agreed to the targets. It was a plan that was funded through the budget surplus, that did not further tax Canadians, and that provided money directly, without any conditions, other than the fundamental requirement that it had to help reduce climate change, which was philosophically important. Any and all measures taken to reach that goal were left entirely to the discretion of the provinces.

Mr. Harper, like a good Conservative who supported decentralization and like a true federalist leader, said that he was giving $400 million to each province so it could move forward with its plan.

By 2015, after 10 years of Conservative government, the country had not only weathered the worst economic crisis, the worst recession in history since the 1930s, but it had also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2% and increased the gross domestic product for all Canadians while lopping three points off the GST and lowering income taxes for families with two children by an average of $2,000 per year.

If that is not co-operative federalism, if those are not real results, if that is not a concrete environmental plan, then I do not know what is. Add to that the fact that we achieved royal assent for no less than 25 to 35 bills every session.

In contrast, during this session, in between being forced to grapple with scandals involving the carbon tax, illegal border crossings, and the Trans Mountain project, this government has barely managed to come up with four genuinely important bills.

By contrast, we expanded parks and protected Canada's wetlands. Our environmental record is exceptional.

Furthermore, we allowed debate. For example, we debated Bill C-23 on electoral reform for four days. The Liberals' electoral reform was debated for two hours.

I am sad, but I am happy to debate until midnight because debating is my passion.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his fascinating speech on how we supported sustainable development in Canada without running unnecessary deficits.

As my colleague mentioned, we went through a significant economic crisis, but we still made unprecedented investments in the environment, which produced results.

The government is currently spending outrageous amounts of money left and right, as we saw yesterday with the $4.5 billion it handed over to the United States to buy a pipeline we did not need.

Responsible managers are able to achieve clear economies of scale and look after the environment. Can my colleague speak to that?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, day after day, the government is revealing itself to be a poor manager for our country. Politics, arguments, and ideologies aside, the Canadian Constitution calls for peace, order, and good government. In this Parliament, we can be comforted by the fact that, at the very least, there is peace and order. However, there certainly is not good governance.

Day after day, the Liberals face national crises, sometimes of their own making, and their solutions are almost behind the times. They are unable to balance the budget in a reasonable time, as they promised.

What I particularly liked about the Conservative government, and what I will like about the future 2019 Conservative government, is that it had the political courage to speak the truth and take real action.

Today, we are talking about the environment, and I have a theory. I am sure that the Paris Agreement, which is much more practical and effective, exists because Mr. Harper had the courage to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol before all the international elite. Everyone knew that the Kyoto protocol was not working. There were useless meetings where the international elite set completely unrealistic objectives, when meanwhile all the countries knew full well that they would never achieve those greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Canada was the first and only country to have the courage to say that the Kyoto protocol was not working and that it needed to be updated. It was the only country that had the courage to withdraw. The Paris Agreement and its reduction targets of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 exist primarily because of the Conservative government and the $1.5-billion ecotrust it created in 2007, which was a real and tangible example of federal co-operation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for his articulate speech. The former prime minister said that it was important that all Canadian governments remain competitive with the United States when it comes to the environment.

They continue to add new taxes that make us less and less competitive with the United States. The Liberals are making bad environmental policies that are not only adding extra costs for Canadians but making us less competitive. Is the member concerned about the competitiveness gap that the government is pursuing with regard to the environment? The Liberals always like to say that the environment goes hand in hand with the economy, but sometimes it does not, because there are trade-offs between the two.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague could not be more right. The government has yet to propose to Canadians how it is going to respond to the fiscal reform related to the presidency of Mr. Trump, which has already had a great impact on us. I have read the National Post and The Globe and Mail in the last month, and most experts have been telling us that Canada's competitiveness has decreased drastically in the last several months.

We learned yesterday that not only is the government not responding to the fiscal reform being implemented in the U.S., but it is sending $4.5 billion of taxpayer money to a Texas-based company, Kinder Morgan. We have all known the story, of course, since yesterday.

Worse than that, in the autumn session, the government tried to impose fiscal reform that would tax our small and medium-sized enterprises more and more. I am sure that the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is very concerned about that because he is the critic for small and medium-sized enterprises. It is a fiasco, and the government does not know how to deal with it, either domestically or internationally.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 9:02 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the division stands deferred until Thursday, May 31, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motion in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:13 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, May 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-57.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #689

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #690

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.