Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2016

Paris Agreement

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment, but I could not disagree more strongly. I believe that setting the price of carbon is the way to go to achieve these reductions in emissions, and using the power of free markets and the private sector to achieve these outcomes has been proven in the past to work.

If the government were to set a price on carbon, allowing free markets to achieve these outcomes, that is the way to go, but what is critical in setting that price is ensuring the revenue neutrality of any revenues to the taxpayer. As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, if we do not do that, we are about to embark on one of the biggest tax grabs in Canadian history, and mark my words, this will have major political repercussions.

This is on a scale that makes the Green Energy Act in Ontario look Mickey Mouse. This is something that, at $50 a tonne, will cost the equivalent of 2% of GDP, some $38 billion a year. This is a huge shift in tax policy, and the fact that the government did not insist on revenue neutrality will hammer consumers and companies across this country.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It was a very well laid out case.

In my riding there are a lot of beef farmers. We have some manufacturers left that managed to survive the Ontario Liberals, especially with the Green Energy Act, which is almost driving them to the point of not being able to compete.

Now I am hearing words here about a likely new carbon tax. We have cattle farmers who want to get their product to market. We have manufacturers competing with economies all around the world. Maybe my friend could explain how Canadian businesses compete now with this new tax scheme they have.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that allows me to briefly touch on something else that I was not able to touch upon during my remarks, which is that not only did the government not bring forward a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but it also failed to come forward with a plan to eliminate all the regulations, the costly and ineffective regulations that put a huge burden on consumers and on companies across this country. These are regulations like the corporate average fuel economy standard regulations, the bio-fuel and ethanol and bio-diesel standards that could all have been eliminated had a proper revenue-neutral price on carbon been implemented.

It would have saved consumers and companies a lot of regulatory burden and a lot of undue costs. However, all that opportunity was missed because the government failed to show leadership on this issue and establish a nationwide revenue-neutral carbon tax using the power of free markets while at the same time cutting red tape and all the regulatory overburden that has been imposed on consumers and companies across this country.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to announce that I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak on a matter of great importance to my constituents in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

Climate change is the most important environmental issue of our time. The adoption of the Paris agreement last December was a historic accomplishment in the global effort to address climate change. Why is it so important? If we look at my province, we see that the impact of climate change could be dramatic.

Manitoba's location in the middle of the continent means that we will feel climate change sooner, with more severe changes. Scientists have detailed how Manitoba, already known for its extreme weather, will see summers get much drier and much hotter, and winters much warmer. In fact, the average winter temperature in southern Manitoba has increased three degrees over the last 40 years. Our winters are increasingly caught in a freeze-thaw cycle, which is devastating for our already maligned infrastructure.

The impact on our ecosytem could also increase toxic algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg.

This bears repeating: the average winter temperature in southern Manitoba has increased 3 degrees over the last 40 years. Clearly, we must act.

Of the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement, over 60 have already ratified it. The international will to take action on this is impressive, and Canada must play an active role.

We stood with the rest of the world in Paris to adopt the agreement. We stood with world leaders in New York on April 22, Earth Day, to sign it. Now we must stand with the movers to ratify Paris.

Let us demonstrate that Canada is without a doubt committed to action.

The Paris agreement is not the end of the process. It is only the next step in the efforts to resolve the climate change problem.

More steps will have to be taken. Some of them have already been mentioned in the House. The international community will meet again in Marrakesh, Morocco, for the next round of negotiations with the UN.

Canada must remain a leader in the global fight against climate change and help to ensure a positive outcome.

Marrakech is expected to be a celebration of early entry into force. This will trigger the first meeting of parties to the Paris agreement. Canada has supported efforts to have the agreement enter into force as soon as possible. It is my sincere hope that Canada will ratify the agreement and be part of this important moment.

This meeting, or COP 22, as it is known, is expected to focus on implementation and action. It will continue the world's efforts toward the implementation of the Paris agreement. It will focus attention on the action that all countries and other actors are undertaking to address climate change.

There remain many issues that require significant technical work before the agreement is fully implemented. The Paris agreement provided the framework for global action. Now we must fill that frame with details.

Over the course of the past few months, countries have been writing position papers on those details. The papers, which are now available on the UN website, will inform the technical work in November. We must show the world that this work is progressing well and that implementation will be robust. Canada is contributing to this work in collaboration with our provinces and territories.

Another big part of filling the frame will involve providing details on how countries will support each other as they begin to implement the agreement. This could involve technology transfer, capacity building, knowledge sharing, and so on. Canada is extremely well positioned in this area.

For developing countries, implementing the agreement is often linked to the financial support they will need. To realize the goals of Paris, partners at all levels must work together. Financial support for climate action in developing countries is an essential part of this.

In Morocco, donor countries will provide more clarity and predictability regarding funding. They will achieve their common goal of raising $100 billion U.S. by 2020.

Governments have to make progress on their commitment. It is an essential part of inspiring confidence.

COP 22 will provide countries with a unique opportunity to have a frank dialogue on how to unleash financial flows to ensure transformation to a low-carbon economy. Everyone will be expected to demonstrate progress and action in Morocco. It will be a measure of success as the world seeks to maintain the momentum of Paris. As part of this, Canada will showcase our work under the pan-Canadian framework and the significant new investments we are making in the areas of clean tech and green infrastructure.

How will Canada contribute to the success of COP 22? As we were in Paris, Canada will be constructive. Canada will be active. We will advance our positions, and Canada will engage the world to advance the implementation of the Paris agreement and showcase our climate change efforts at home and abroad.

We will demonstrate our commitment to action through the pan-Canadian framework, as well as our international actions, not just under the UN but through complementary fora such as the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition.

This is not just about emission reductions. We also have much to share about our experiences in adapting to the impacts of climate change. For example, Canada will highlight the climate change challenges faced by indigenous and northern communities. We will tell the world how the different levels of government, private companies, and local communities in Canada are working together to address our short- and long-term climate change adaptation and energy related issues. Our efforts include incorporating indigenous science and traditional knowledge in decision-making, and we have a good story to tell the world there.

To help share Canada's unique perspectives and experiences, we will go to Morocco with an inclusive delegation. That will include provinces, territories, national indigenous organizations, non-government organizations, youth, and individuals from the private sector to join the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

We invite opposition leaders to join the minister and the Canadian delegation.

However, before COP 22, we first must take the next important step.

We must ratify the Paris agreement.

Let us give Canada a seat the table of COP 22 as a founding partner to the Paris agreement.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital has considered the impact at all of this new carbon pricing that was announced earlier today on industries like farming and transportation. The city in which he resides has a project happening called CentrePort. It is the centre of Canada's transportation distribution centre, north, south, east, west. It is the centre of Canada.

Transportation burns diesel fuel and consumes a lot of jet fuel. There is going to be a huge impact on those two industries. I am wondering if my hon. friend has any answers for those people who are going to see astronomical increases to their cost of doing business.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why we are moving ahead with an implementation plan to address climate change. There is an organization in the city of Winnipeg called the Prairie Climate Centre that has determined that if our carbon emissions remain the same, Winnipeg and Manitoba will be experiencing 46 days per year of above 30-degree temperatures within the next 30 years. That is four times the current average of 11 days. That is going to mean extreme weather. That is going to mean increased droughts, increased flooding, increased forest fires. Those are all very good reasons to get serious about climate change, and that is why we are moving forward on this.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, sitting here today, I am struck by the fact that the commitments are not being honoured that were given to Canadians last year in the election. Most Canadians felt like we were going to see something different with the current government, that we were going to see it address climate change in a way that would impact generations to come. I know that the environmentalists in Essex today would join the list of Canadians who are feeling let down by the Liberal government. This new plan for the environment is no different than the old plan, and that was a weak plan to begin with. There is no difference between what we had and what is being presented here today.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has stated several times that the previous government targets were just the floor. However, now the Liberals are backtracking. Suddenly the floor is the ceiling and we are talking about the exact same targets.

Can my colleague tell the House why the Liberals have misled Canadians into believing that they would improve Canada's performance beyond Conservative targets?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the premise of the question by the hon. member. We have gone to Paris in good faith. We have engaged the world to address climate change. We have brought the whole issue here for a vote. We have put all sorts of incredible details on the next step with an actual price on carbon pollution, which was announced by the Prime Minister today. We are working with provinces.

That is nothing like the previous government, who in its 2008 budget actually had a plan to address climate change but unfortunately no progress was made on that.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to members on the other side talk about farming and the importance of farming, and that somehow farmers will not progress when we enact a price on carbon. I recently spoke with the Egg Farmers of Canada, and they have managed to reduce their carbon footprint by 50% and to increase, by 50%, their production. This would be good for the residents of Winnipeg where my colleague represents his riding.

Why is it important that we put a price on carbon today, and if we do not put a price on carbon, what might happen in the future?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have noted some statistics and some valid scientific research that the previous government obviously did not respect from the Prairie Climate Centre and from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. It says that if we do nothing, if we keep emitting carbon at this rate, we are going to be experiencing increased droughts, increased flooding, increased forest fires, none of which is good for any sector in Manitoba or across Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House, today, as a proud member of Parliament, honoured to be speaking on behalf of the residents of Davenport. I will be speaking in strong support of, first, Canada ratifying the Paris accord, and second, the March 3, 2016, Vancouver declaration agreed to by all premiers and territorial leaders.

Davenport is ready. We look forward to Canada ratifying the Paris accord, if it is the will of the House, and achieving our COP21 targets. We look forward to the finalization of the details of the pan-Canadian framework that was established as part of the Vancouver declaration and that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is currently negotiating in Montreal with, no doubt, great zeal and urgency.

Davenport is ready to step up to the plate to do its part.

Let us start with a short recap.

As we all know too well, climate change is an urgent global priority. International action to address climate change has gained momentum over the last few years, culminating in the successful adoption of the Paris agreement late last year and the 21st conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Paris agreement aims to limit the global average temperature increase to below 2°C, with efforts being made to keep it below 1.5 degrees. It also has provisions to improve our resilience and adaptation to the effects of climate change. Meeting these goals will require action by all countries, particularly when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada formally signed the agreement in New York City this past April at a ceremony held by the United Nations Secretary-General. It was a momentous day. One hundred and seventy-five parties signed the Paris agreement on International Mother Earth Day, which was April 22. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared, “We are in a race against time.... Together, let us turn the aspirations of Paris into action...so that the spirit of solidarity of Paris lives again”. He then urged all countries to move quickly so that the agreement can enter into force as early as possible.

Now, just over five months later, I am hoping that Canada will be moving as quickly forward as possible to ratify the agreement and to join a number of other leading countries in bringing the agreement into force in time for this year's 22nd United Nations climate change conference to be held in Marrakesh, Morocco, in November.

It is important to note that for the Paris accord to enter into force, the agreement must be ratified by 55 parties, representing at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As of today, 62 parties have ratified, representing 52% of global emissions. We are still not there yet. Canada, by ratifying the Paris accord, will move the world closer to the Paris accord coming into force.

Ratification is but one key step. We all know that we need to take urgent big action right here in Canada. Earlier this year, in early March, the Prime Minister met with the first ministers and indigenous leaders on how we can collectively and collaboratively work together to meet the COP21 targets and agreed to establish a pan-Canadian framework to address climate change. This is now called the Vancouver declaration. Upon reflection, this was a historic moment. After 10 years of almost no action by the previous Conservative government, the Prime Minister met with all the provincial-territorial leaders and indigenous leaders, and they unanimously agreed to work together for the benefit of all Canadians.

I want to pause to recognize what I think is a minor miracle, that this meeting and the subsequent outcome took place. There was the vision of our Prime Minister and the great desire by all first ministers to assemble and to sit at the same table to discuss how to move forward together. This is leadership. It was a historic moment, to be sure.

Here is what the Prime Minister's press release stated after the first ministers' meeting was over:

Building on commitments and actions already taken by provinces and territories and the momentum from COP21 in Paris, we are moving toward a pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change that will meet or exceed Canada's international emissions targets, and will transition our country to a stronger, more resilient, low-carbon economy—while also improving our quality of life.

The Vancouver declaration laid out a process for federal, provincial, and territorial collaboration to create a pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change. It established four key working groups. The first one was clean technology, innovation, and jobs. The second was carbon pricing mechanisms. The third was specific mitigation opportunities. The fourth was adaptation and climate resilience.

I am pleased to say that the working groups have completed their final reports, which will soon be made public. Today, as I mentioned earlier, our Minister of Environment and Climate Change is in Montreal, and together with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, is reviewing the reports that will ultimately be provided to the first ministers for their deliberation.

All of these recommendations will be discussed at the next first ministers meeting to be held in early December, where I hope the final details of the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change will be finalized, a framework that will lay out key measures and commitments by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and will enable us to meet our national climate change target by 2030.

It is also important to note that the minister is incorporating the ideas and suggestions made by Canadians who made submissions online or via a town hall. I am pleased to say that I hosted a town hall in Davenport. In fact, I held two environment and climate change town halls. They were both packed. I knew it would be of great interest to the residents of Davenport, and they had a lot to say.

Here is what I heard. I heard that Davenport is ready. The Davenport riding strongly supports the Canadian government stepping up to the plate and taking leadership on the environment, both nationally and internationally. Davenport supports an ambitious agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Putting a price on carbon is vital to this transition.

By now, Davenport residents will have heard the Prime Minister's announcement earlier today that the pricing for carbon pollution will be set at $10 per tonne in 2018, and rise $10 each year to $50 per tonne by 2022. Revenues will be neutral for the federal government, and any revenues generated stay in the provinces from where they came. I believe this is good news for Davenport and good news for Canada.

During the town halls, I also heard that Davenport is ready for good-paying jobs. We know that moving towards a low-carbon economy will create the kinds of jobs we want to have, while creating a better future for all of us. Putting a price on carbon pollution will encourage innovation, will bring the good-paying jobs that Canadians are seeking, and as our Prime Minister said earlier today, if we do not take advantage of the opportunities before us, we do a great disservice to all Canadians.

Davenport is ready, ready to do its part. We know that taking action on climate change, reducing greenhouse emissions, transitioning how we live, think, and work is a shared responsibility. Davenport is ready to be part of the solution. We support increasing the use of renewables, encouraging more urban agriculture, reducing food waste, and eliminating packaging. We support boosting the number of bicycles and electric and alternative fuel vehicles on our roads, and improving the efficiencies of our homes and buildings.

Davenport is ready for a timeline, a game plan of how Canada will move forward towards a low-carbon future, and how we will transition to using renewable, clean energy.

Shimon Peres, one of the founding fathers of Israel, who sadly passed away just last week, said in an onstage interview at the World Economic Forum in January 2014, that the world is moving faster than ever before but the opportunity before us is that we get to shape the world that we live in.

The challenge of our time is indeed climate change, but with leadership at the national level, leadership at the provincial and territorial level, working hand in hand with indigenous peoples across Canada, and with Canadians like the residents in Davenport stepping up to do their part, I have no doubt that working together we can reduce our emissions substantially, we can transition our behaviour, transition our lives, and we can meet Canada's COP21 targets.

Our Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon that when Canada is faced with a problem, we lean in, we work together to solve the problem, and we live up to our commitment. As we enter the 150th anniversary year of this wonderful country that we are all blessed to call our home, we are asking all Canadians to lean in, to work together, and to do all we can to create a better future for our children, our grandchildren, and for generations to come.

In today's challenging times, we are called to live up to the motto of Canada, actually it is the motto of the Order of Canada, but it still applies. Desiderantes meliorem patriam; they desire a better country.

We, indeed, do desire a better country, and as our Prime Minister always says, in Canada, we can always do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, in setting a price on carbon today, the Prime Minister made the assumption that the price would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hopefully not have any detrimental impact on the Canadian economy. In setting a price, one would assume that the Prime Minister had done a detailed analysis of the inelasticity of carbon prices.

Could my colleague opposite validate the Prime Minister's assumption that a $50 tax on carbon would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions by stating the data on inelasticity is for carbon pricing that the government used to make this decision?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 80% of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction with a price on carbon. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is working hard to see if we can bring that to 100%.

Carbon pricing is just one of several measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is currently being discussed by the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Carbon pricing policies help to do a number of things, including minimizing the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing a continuous incentive to technology, innovation, and transition to low carbon economy, achieving significant emissions reductions, and providing consumers and business with flexibility.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for talking about solutions and how we all have to be a part of the change. She talked about how we needed to live, think, and work differently. She talked about cycling.

We have been told that if we are to meet targets and reduce emissions by 30% by 2030, that would mean the removal of every car and truck on the road. That is not realistic so we have to come up with new alternative strategies to get people moving differently, to promote active transportation.

Countries around the world like the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have developed a national cycling strategy. In Canada right now, 2% of children travel to school by bicycle, whereas in Germany it is 15%, in Sweden it is 20%, and in the Netherlands it is 50%. To be a cycling nation, we need a national cycling strategy to get people using different modes of transportation. This is not the only solution however. We need to take a heavy approach to ensure polluters pay.

Does the member for Davenport support creating a national cycling strategy in Canada with measurable targets to get people cycling, which would bring industry together and promote education, safety, and infrastructure?

Tomorrow I will be tabling a bill calling for a national cycling strategy. I hope the hon. member will join me and support the bill.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as many know within my caucus and the House, I am a huge champion of cycling and of active transportation. I have talked to the Minister of Infrastructure about the importance of it, particularly in a downtown riding like Davenport where there is so much traffic that the only way to move is on paths. Cycling is important.

My understanding is that the parliamentary committee on transport is currently looking at a national cycling strategy, which I would support.

After two nights of big debate with a lot of members of my riding, there was a clear understanding that we had to always remember that we had to grow and build a strong economy while also protecting the environment. There is always that balance and that tension to keep in mind as we move forward to aggressively achieve our COP21 targets.

I am a big supporter of cycling. I am also a big supporter of a national cycling strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague for Yellowhead.

I am an Albertan MP who represents families who are standing on the brink in the middle of a jobs crisis. I will not stand in this place and vote to support a significant tax increase that will burden Canadian families for which the government has provided no details. Mark my words, the devil is in the details, which the Prime Minister conveniently left out of his speech today.

First, there is virtually no data on any region in Canada proving the Prime Minister's tax would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is the question that the Prime Minister and my colleague for Davenport could not answer. At what price does the demand for gasoline, heating fuel, and other carbon products actually decrease in Canada, by how much and over what time period?

If demand is mostly inelastic, then the Prime Minister's tax will increase government revenue without any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to show for it. Simply put, if gas is 90¢ a litre or $2.50 a litre, Canadians are still likely to fill up their cars. If natural gas goes up significantly, and it is -30°C in Winnipeg, furnaces are still going to be turned on. It is just going to cost them more, either in money or opportunity.

Along this line of thought, Mark Lee, a senior economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said this about B.C.'s carbon tax. He said that since 2010, B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions had increased every year, and as of 2013, they were up 4.3% above 2010 levels.

If the Prime Minister wants to take more of our money, he should be able to tell us where it is going to go. Would revenue from this tax be dumped into the offsetting of the Liberal deficit? Would it fund the development of new technology? How much would it cost to implement the administration of this new tax?

Without any of this information, the Prime Minister cannot tell Canadians what the impact of his tax on Canadian workers and lower income Canadians will be. Without this information, there is no way he can pretend to say that this tax is “revenue neutral”.

Because carbon products are highly inelastic and pervasive, the reality is that the tax the Prime Minister announced today is likely to look and act a lot like an increase to the GST. Further, the Prime Minister is not talking about the development or adoption horizon of alternative technology that could alter these assumptions over time, or what the effect of his tax would be on different income brackets and industries will be.

If he cannot answer if one region of the country will be affected more than others, he cannot provide Canadians with assurances that this will work. He also cannot answer if rural and urban Canadians will be affected differently.

We also need to look globally.

In order to see the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the world, major emitting countries need to take action. Nations such as China, which emits over 20% of total global emissions, and the United States with nearly 18% of global emissions, have ratified the Paris agreement. Compared to initiatives like the Kyoto protocol, this is a marked improvement, as previous agreements did not see all major emitters commit to targets.

This is important in the context of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions profile, which is 1.95% of all global emissions. Canada has a relatively low greenhouse gas emissions profile.

A question the Prime Minister cannot ignore is that even if Canada imposes one of the most restrictive greenhouse gas emission frameworks in the world, what can we do to make major emitters like Brazil, India, China, and the United States reduce their greenhouse gas profiles? What happens if we implement a framework that makes our industries less competitive than those located in countries that are not taking action? Have the billions of dollars that Canada has spent on global mitigation and adaptation efforts made any impact?

It is completely irrational for the Prime Minister to impose new taxation measures on Canadians and let them pay the cost while the biggest offenders take advantage of our potential economic inferiority as a result. The Prime Minister needs to address this dichotomy to have credibility with Canadians before he raids their pocketbooks with his new tax. At the very least, which he did not do today, he needs to explain how our domestic policy will align in the North American context.

Contrary to the Prime Minister's assertion, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions profile is in a much better place then when the Liberal government was in power. Recent Canadian emissions trends reports shows that regulations on specific high-emission sectors, such as vehicles and the coal-fired electricity sector, have reduced our overall greenhouse gas emissions growth. More important, this has happened while the Canadian economy has grown. The decoupling of economic growth in Canada's natural resource-intensive economy from greenhouse gas emissions growth is significant positive progress.

Any national greenhouse gas emissions framework should set achievable targets. It should be fully costed and measured by arm's-length data collection programs. It should simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the job security of Canadian workers, the jurisdiction of provinces, and lower income Canadians.

This means that presenting a price on carbon as a painless, stand-alone cure-all, as this government is doing, is a costly fallacy in the cold, regionalized, natural resource intensive Canadian economy. That is not to say that we should not take action. Rather, it is saying that the Prime Minister's dogma on a new tax, without any proof that it will actually work, coupled with his intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, will inhibit the development of a multi-faceted approach that recognizes Canada's uniqueness.

Among many instruments, Canada could include phased-in sector-specific regulations, and members will note that the current government is not talking about repealing regulations put in place by the previous government, clean technology development and adoption. It must leverage energy efficiency standards and incentives, and involve working with conservation groups that understand the importance of the sustainable management of Canada's forests and wetlands. It also must involve first nation communities whose traditional knowledge has long helped sustain our country's environmental health.

If it is going to include a tax, then it has to address the concerns that I have raised here today. I highly doubt the Prime Minister will be able to do that.

The Prime Minister also needs to acknowledge that we are not a European country when we compare international greenhouse gas reduction policy to ourselves. The practical reality is that it is cold here. We live far apart. We are a young country with a developing public transit infrastructure. As such, the plan needs to involve smart long-term urban planning, public transit investments, and investments into disaster mitigation infrastructure.

The Prime Minister's tax will require the financial sacrifice of Canadians, and Canadians should have a say in whether they want to make it. They should be aware of the costs, which should not be hidden in line items on electricity bills to avoid political scrutiny, the way the Ontario Liberals have shamefully gone about doing.

To gain credibility, the Liberals need to move away from mythology on this issue. There is no evidence to back up assertions that a carbon tax would instantly result in the United States allowing us to build projects like KXL. They should admit that the few rich CEOs of Canada's big energy firms probably support their tax because it may force junior firms out of the market, enabling them to make a play for assets. The energy sector is not the CEOs, it is its workers. Right now they are laid off and getting by on their credit card. They are not asking for more taxes.

It is also worth noting that the last time the Liberals were in power greenhouse gas emissions rose by 30%. Therefore, I do not trust the government to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I certainly do not trust it to do it without killing the jobs of my constituents. That is because in 1980, the father of the current Prime Minister announced a similar pan-Canadian strategy, which used words such as “fairness” and “opportunities” in its objectives. This colossally disastrous social engineering experiment, which was the national energy program, forced thousands of Albertans out of their homes and set the Canadian economy back for a generation.

Today, the Liberal Prime Minister is embarking down the same path his father did, imposing a significant tax on the provinces without detail and encroaching on their jurisdiction, coupled with other policy that is decimating investment prospects of the development of our energy sector during a time of economic stagnation. Frankly it is history repeating itself.

Notably absent from the Prime Minister's tax announcement today is the corresponding research showing what effect this will have on the energy sector in Canada, and on the millions of jobs dependent on our continued economic success derived from Canada's abundance of natural resources.

Last week, the Liberals stood here and said that the main reason why energy infrastructure projects were not proceeding is because, “right now the issue is low commodity prices.” Is that not convenient? This shows a complete ignorance of the criteria that job-creating companies use to make investment decisions in the energy sector. Certainty is needed to make multi-billion dollar energy sector investment commitments. Quasi-changing the environmental assessment process in a closed, unpredictable and non-transparent way, unpredictable increases in taxation, such as the CPP increase and today's new tax, create uncertainty that puts a chill on job creators.

The Liberals refuse to admit that market access is a critical factor in seeing the value of Canada's energy resources translate into things like jobs and social programs, which is made evident by their silence with respect to support for pipelines.

While the Liberal government was busy initiating a new tax on a region that was already struggling to stay on its feet, today we started the Alberta jobs task force.

The inconvenient truth that we are dealing with today is that these questions need to be answered. There is a lot at stake. With the government failing to do so, once again all that the Liberals will have left Canadians is debt, uncertainty, job losses, increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and a dog named Kyoto.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the nostalgic trip down the memory lane of my university days, talking about the elasticity and demand for certain products in the market. However, I think she neglects to realize that it is the tax, the government intervention, which will specifically change the elasticity of the demand of fossil fuels in this particular case.

By government intervening and making it easier for companies to be more efficient, to change the way they do business, to become more environmental friendly and reduce the emissions, it will directly result in the demand becoming more elastic. Consumers can then have a choice, preferably a choice toward making the responsible decision of being environmentally friendly and not polluting.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the soccer mom who has five kids and a Dodge Caravan, if the price of gas goes from 90¢ a litre to $2.50 a litre, she still has to get her kids to school. She still has to get to work. She still has to run errands and do a lot of things. She still has to fill up her van.

The whole point of price elasticity is that there is a price at which demand changes. The government is intervening there. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I really hope that my colleague goes back to economics 101, and I certainly hope that the Prime Minister can stand in this House and answer the most basic of questions. The government needs to show data. In a cold, sparsely populated country, where we have to drive to places and we have to heat our homes, demand will not change because of its tax. It will not affect the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. All it will do is increase the cost of everything.

That is why this is the number one fallacy. This is why economists raise this as an issue over and over again. The Liberals want Canadians to forget this because they want more tax dollars for their ridiculous spending.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I had the opportunity to work with her on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Commissioners of the environment and sustainable development have prepared so many reports. They claim that the Conservatives' plan would fail to meet their weak greenhouse gas reduction targets. Nevertheless, I agree with my Conservative colleague that the Liberals are using the same target that they once criticized.

Does my colleague think it is a bit ridiculous for the Liberals to use the same target that they themselves criticized?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a conversation here about targets. Across party lines, the discussion on greenhouse gas emissions targets in Canada has been “My arbitrary target is bigger than yours.”

In order for the government to have any credibility in going to Canadians and raiding their pocketbooks with a new tax, it should be able to say why the target that has been put in place is achievable and what impact it will have on each sector of the Canadian economy. This is a discussion that we have not had in Canada. I wish we could elevate the debate beyond good versus evil on this particular issue.

However, the reality is that unless the government looks beyond the dogma of a revenue grab at ways that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will never see change in Canada. We also need to look beyond our borders. I think the government has significantly oversimplified this issue, and it is doing it to the detriment of Canadians and their livelihoods.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and share this time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

The details of the pan-Canadian strategy to meet the international commitments in the Paris accord will include some form of carbon tax or cap and trade system. After the Paris agreement was adopted in December of last year, all we have heard from the Liberal government is carbon tax, carbon tax. In fact, it met with provincial and territorial leaders to sell them on this carbon tax. Not all of the provinces bought into this, and they should not. The government is moving too quickly, and, in doing so, is not putting together a great deal for all Canadians.

Pricing carbon emissions through a carbon tax, hopefully to encourage companies and households to adopt green practices, is simply a tax grab. A carbon tax puts a monetary price on the real costs imposed on our economy, communities, and planet. Shifting to energy-efficient products would put a demand on industry to develop better technologies. Where are we now, and where does the government think industry is going? I will speak on this a little later.

The cap and trade system would put a firm limit or cap on the overall levels of carbon pollution for industry and set pollution targets. There are followers for both systems and arguments from both sides if a set-up works and can work in unison. Personally, I am not in favour of another tax with longer-term effects. I believe Canadians want action now and want to participate in helping to reduce gas emissions. From companies to homeowners, one only has to look to find some who are reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In my riding of Yellowhead, one can see results. People are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and do not have to be taxed to do it. They are doing it because it is good for the environment. The Liberal government should listen to what industry and individuals are doing and get involved, not by taxing them, but by investing in Canada's industry and the people to develop technologies that reduce our greenhouse gases. Industries are doing this at the present time. Some examples can be found in my riding of Yellowhead.

The federal government must work with its provincial counterparts to develop new building codes to enable developers and home builders to design and build energy-efficient homes and buildings. Financial incentive programs should be in place to assist in using solar and thermal power, so that energy needs are reduced. Government-sponsored resources about best building practices should be at the top of the list. Together with the industry sector, Canada will be a leader.

We should not be giving money to other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We should be developing our science and technology to be the most efficient users of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By sharing our science and technology with other countries, we not only become greener, but we grow our economy.

I recently built a home and a large workshop on my acreage in Edson, Alberta. I used the best practices out there to make my home efficient. My house is 3,200 square feet, and my workshop is 2,400 square feet. My apartment here in Ottawa is four years old and is 800 square feet. I spend more money on power for my apartment than I do for my property in Alberta. Why? It is efficiency.

People across this great country of ours are doing the right thing in making us greener. Government incentives would encourage more to do so. The more involved we are, the greener we become, resulting in less energy needed. It is very simple.

In my riding, there is a new college in the town of Drayton Valley. I am very proud of it. It is called the Bio Mile, and Clean Energy Technology Centre. The centre trains young people who are going into the energy work field and provides them with the opportunity to learn the latest scientific and technical ways to reduce industry greenhouse gas emissions. This is where the federal and provincial governments should be investing.

We can reduce emissions. Industry is already a player. Our students want to learn how to be the best in clean fuel technology, clean building technology, and more efficient vehicle technology. The government should and must fund greener science and technology.

One of the big industry sponsors of the Bio Mile and Clean Energy Technology Centre is WestJet. This Alberta-based airline understands that we need to address greenhouse gas emissions as it pertains to the airline industry as a whole. I feel confident that Air Canada and others do as well.

There is 2% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions that come from transportation directly related to air travel. Canada produces, as we all know, less than 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. I believe it is about 1.6%. WestJet and others are working at reducing fuel consumption by 1.5% a year, and reducing emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2020. They are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption by investing in technology innovation, infrastructure efficiency, operational improvements, and smart economic measures. They are investing billions of dollars on new, modern, efficient aircraft. They are already part of the solution. Why are we going to hit them again with a carbon tax over and above some provincial carbon tax and some cap and trade program?

My riding is known as coal country. We are proud of the industry. With several coal-fired electrical generating stations, our riding will see a lot more unemployment for people as the plants voluntarily close down due to government regulations. The Genesee hydro facility is one of the latest state-of-the-art facilities. Its greenhouse gas emissions are the lowest in North America, in fact in the world. This was done through science and technology. I believe that these facilities can be made to emit 0% emissions. This is where government and industry should be working together, and in doing so help the world to be more efficient at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Besides thermal coal, the Yellowhead is blessed with an abundance of metallurgical coal used in steelmaking. Some argue that it is the best coal in the world. This is probably correct, as it comes out of the Yellowhead. Tech industries are a major player in the Yellowhead. They have been active in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by initiating corporate policies, such as an anti-idling policy on equipment, converting diesel-powered trucks to LNG, alternate energy generators, and wind turbines. Their goal is to avoid 450,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually by 2030. Again, industry is doing its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Is adding a carbon tax really the right thing to do? Or, should the government be partners in new science and innovation in the mining sector?

Agriculture is a big part of my riding. We have grain farms and cattle ranches. If one wants to see a group of Canadians who want to protect the environment and work the land, these are our unsung heroes. Ranchers are strong conservationists. They work every day to keep the land healthy, all the while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It is the same with our farmers.

Farm Credit Canada has contributed $8.1 million in energy loans to make farmers more efficient and sustainable in their operations. In fact, in-house, it has reduced its air travel by 13.5%, overall travel by 6.7%, and paper use by 9.4%. Again, it is Canadians working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Farms, by employing minimum tillage practices, save over 170 million tonnes of fuel annually. Animal welfare and caring for the environment are important to people in agriculture. Their livelihood depends on it, now and for future generations. Should our government hit them with a carbon tax, or work with them to help reduce our emissions by investing in science and technology?

I would be remiss if I did not speak about our forest industry. Our forest plays an important role in the carbon cycle. It can be carbon sinks or carbon sources. How we manage our forests is extremely critical. Again, government and industry must and need to work together, using science and technology in harvesting, replanting, and protecting our forests.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Madam Speaker, I have heard repeatedly that this proposal discussed earlier today is a revenue grab, but I come from British Columbia where the first carbon pricing was instituted and it was revenue neutral, much like the proposal put out today.

In fact, there was an article in The Economist in July 2014 that detailed the plan when the first $10 a tonne amount was put into place in 2008, which rose by $5 a tonne for the first six years. In those first six years, per person consumption of fuels dropped by 16% in British Columbia while in the rest of Canada per person consumption rose by 3%.

It is also interesting to note that the province with the revenue neutral carbon pricing already in place is one of the fastest growing economies in the country. Is this not a demonstration that carbon pricing works?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an indicator but we have to take into account a lot of other factors. In the early stages, British Columbia was going through an economic slump. That was part of the reason that transportation went down, because there was not as much movement in the province. I was a resident there for 40-some years.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard from colleagues across the floor and from my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, in her presentation, that people should simply drive an electric car. We have heard that in Alberta. The response from the Alberta provincial government when it came to imposing its carbon tax was that people should just start using public transit or an electric car. The government suggested that people should just trade in their cars.

I live in rural Alberta. I takes me more than five hours to drive from one end of my riding to the other. In the middle of winter it can be a challenge for certain, but the vast majority of my constituents are ranchers. They will not be using a Toyota Prius to haul their cattle liner down the highway. They will not be using an electric car to haul bales from one field to the next.

What impact does my colleague feel the carbon tax will have on the agricultural sector? This is not simply about changing one's lifestyle. We have a lifestyle that ensures that we are successful. What would a carbon tax mean and what will its implications be for the agriculture sector?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, its impact will be great. We heard today that there will be an increase of 11.5¢ for gasoline and around 14¢ for diesel. A farmer who is farming 10,000 acres is really going to feel the impact of adding 14¢ a litre to the amount of fuel he uses in his equipment. It is going to be have a large impact. It is going to hurt industry.

As a former commercial pilot, I know that in the airline industry, a carrier like WestJet is probably going to be looking at $2 million or more just for the carbon tax on fuel alone.